The endorsement of an attachment order by an arbitral tribunal without enforcement through a civil court is invalid.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2026 The Petitioner, is the absolute owner and registered proprietor of the immovable property more fully described in the schedule to this petition (hereinafter referred to as the “scheduled property”), being landed property and all improvements thereon admeasuring 2.2 Are (Sy. Sub Div. No. 151/12/5/2) in Kunnathunadu Village and more particularly evidenced by Doc. No. 3819/2012 of Puthencruz SubRegistry. The Petitioner is in peaceful possession and occupation of the said property. At different points of time, her son had availed two separate vehicle loans from the 3^rd Respondent herein for financing the purchase of commercial vehicles.

The Petitioner submits that he executed all documents as guarantor as required by the 3^rd Respondent for creation of security in respect of the above loan accounts and that the securities offered included the said vehicles and, at the request of the 3^rd Respondent, collateral security in the form of a charge/ hypothecation/other encumbrance (as applicable) over the scheduled property. Howerver, default occured and as per the arbitration clause provided under the loan documents and applicable law, the 3^rd Respondent invoked the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreements and initiated arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(I) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st Respondent (Sub Registrar, Puthencuruz) and the 2nd Respondent (Village Officer, Puthencuruz) to forthwith vacate, expunge and remove from their records any entry, encumbrance, notation or endorsement recorded pursuant to or arising out of Arbitration A.C.P. No. SRT/SJ/12 of 2021 insofar as it relates to the Schedule Property (Sy. Sub Div. No. 151/12/5/2; Doc. No.

3819/2012).

(ii). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to endorse that no encumbrance subsists in view of the settlement recorded on 22.05.2025 (Ext. P5), and to furnish certified copies of the corrected/expunged entries to the Petitioner within two weeks from service of notice (iii). Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies 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 maintainabilit