Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
JANCY VENUGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41309 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.HARIHARAN, PRAVEEN.H, K.S.SMITHA, B.R.SINDU, V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR, AFNA V.P, V.ROHITH
For the Respondents: T.JEEJAN, THUSHARA C. PULICKEL
Parties must seek to lift an expired attachment order through the appropriate court, as per arbitration proceedings.
Headnote:The judgment examines the validity of an attachment order issued under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, claiming the petitioners' right to relief as the order's time had elapsed. The Court observed that the petitioners must seek relief from the District Court, referencing the Full Bench decision in Fathima v. Canara Bank (2025 (3) KLT 367). The main issue revolved around the expiration of the attachment order and the appropriate course of action for the petitioners. The petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioners to pursue the matter in the proper forum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of attachment order validity (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing peers and issues raised (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observation offers guidance (Para 4) |
| 4. proper remedy should be sought in appropriate forum (Para 5) |
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
…..................................... W.P.(C)No.41309 of 2025 ….......................................................... Dated this the 17th day of March, 2026 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to remove the attachment, taking note of the observations made in Ext.P2 common order in Arb. OP No.209 of 2008 and Arb. OP No.262 of 2008 passed by the District Court, Ernakulam.
2. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act against the petitioners by filing Arb. OP No.209 of 2008 and Arb. OP No.262 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam. In these proceedings, the 1st respondent obtained an order of conditional attachment, which was subsequently made absolute, as per Ext.P2 order for a period of one year. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, the 1st respondent did not initiate arbitration proceedings against the petitioners within the time period prescribed in Ext.P2 order, and therefore, Ext.P2 has lost its validity due to the passage of time. Later, when the petitioners attempted to sell the residential property, they noticed that the encumbrance certificate obtained, reflected the attachment made by the District Court, Ernakulam, as per Ext.P2 order. It is in such circumstances the petitioners approached this Court by filing this writ petition, seeking the afore relief.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. Admittedly, in the instant case, the attachment, which is reflected in the encumbrance certificate, is based on Ext.P2 order passed by the District Court, Ernakulam, in Arbitration OP. It is the case of the petitioners that the life of Ext.P2 order has expired due to the passage of time, and therefore, they are entitled to get the attachment effaced from the encumbrance certificate. But, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Fathima v. Canara Bank [ 2025 (3) KLT 367 ], the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the District Court itself and seek an order lifting the attachment and thereafter, get the same effaced from the encumbrance certificate.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already approached the District Court, by filing an IA in the Arbitration OP, but that the same was wrongly dismissed. If so, I am of the view that the remedy of the petitioners is to challenge the order passed by the District Court and seek appropriate reliefs.
Ergo, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail the proper remedy in the proper forum, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
