The enforcement of an Arbitral Tribunal's interim order cannot be pursued through writ jurisdiction; the appropriate recourse is an appeal before the Appellate Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to the Respondent No.1/Bank to unfreeze the account maintained by the Petitioner with the said Bank.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Bank submitted that the operation of the account was prevented on the basis of an interim order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . When this submission was made on 04.02.2026, this Court directed the Respondent No.2 to place on record the Order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and the same was produced along with a Memo dated 25.02.2026.

3. When the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an Order, it is for the Petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law before the Appellate Court. The legality of the said Order is to be considered by the Appellate Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Cheraman Financial Services Limited v. Reserve Bank of India [2025 KHC 1264], in which the question considered is whether the interim order passed by the Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be enforced through the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This Court held that the person desiring to execute the order of the Arbitrator has to resort to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , for enforcement of the interim order. The said decision is clearly distinguishable as the present Writ Petition is not for the enforcement of any interim order. When the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order, the Petitioner has to challenge the said Order before the Appellate Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, since the Petitioner has approached this Court, the limitation period for challenging the Order of the Arbitral Tribunal is over. The Petitioner is free to seek exclusion of the time period spent in this Writ Petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation.

Sd/-