Arbitral Tribunal orders require civil court intervention for enforcement, and unlawful endorsements must be rectified.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

….....................................

W.P.(C)No.9171 of 2026 …........................................................... Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Non Banking Financial Company, having its operations and offices in Kerala. When the 3^rd and 4^th respondents committed default in paying the loan amount, the petitioner commenced arbitration proceedings as Arbitration Reference No.140 of 2023 and obtained an order of attachment of the property having an extent of 1.82 ares in Re-Survey No.189/21-2 of the Elankunnapuzha Village, belonging to the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, the same was effectuated by the learned Arbitrator by communicating the same to the 2^nd respondent. Later when the matter was settled, the petitioner again approached the Arbitrator seeking lifting of attachment and the same was allowed as per Ext.P1 order. But when the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent seeking to lift the attachment entries, the same was rejected by Ext.P3 order stating that the order by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be enforced directly. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner approached this court by filing this writ petition, seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to delete the entries of attachment in connection with Arbitration Reference No.140 of 2023 that are entered in the Encumbrance Certificate.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar case, this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment , has granted reliefs to the petitioner, since the act of the Sub-Registrar in making the endorsement of attachment in the Encumbrance Certificate, without the courts intervention is illegal. Hence, he prayed that this writ petition may be allowed.

4. The learned Government Pleader, submitted that this writ petition can be disposed of in similar lines to Ext.P6 judgment .

5. It cannot be disputed that an order of an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be executed directly, without the intervention of the civil court, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment . Hence, considering the fact that an illegality has already been perpetrated by the 2^nd respondent in noting the attachment made by the Arbitrator directly, and the fact that the petitioner must not suffer due to such an illegal act committed by the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this Court can be granted to the petitioner also.

In such circumstances, it is found that the endorsement made by the 2^nd respondent upon the intimation of the Arbitrator in the Encumbrance Certificate was without authority, and hence, the same is declared as null and void. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to delete the entry of attachment made by him in the Encumbrance Certificate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.