Arbitral tribunals cannot enforce attachment orders directly; enforcement must occur through civil courts.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of property having an extent of 1 Are 1 square meter comprised in Re.Sy. No.150/3-2 in Block No.14 of Maradu Village. It is submitted that the petitioners availed two loans from the 3^rd respondent for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- each. The 3^rd respondent thereafter appointed Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order attaching the property of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to efface the attachment entries made in the revenue records of the petitioners’ property;

(ii) In the alternative to prayer (i), issue a direction, directing the

3rd respondent company to produce before this Hon’ble Court records relating to effecting and enforcing of attachment made on the petitioners’ property;

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

and (iv) dispense with the production of English translation of documents in vernacular language which are produced as documents in the above Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233]

wherein, it was held as follows:

“10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable or not in this proceedings.

11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this order by directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Finance Department to intimate all registrar