Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
CV. James, S/o. Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Krishamurthy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. execution petition challenges district court jurisdiction post commercial courts act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. executing court holds dispute as non-commercial money transaction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. transactions indicate financier activities qualifying as commercial dispute. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. remand for re-assessment of commercial dispute jurisdiction. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
This original petition is filed challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the Additional District Judge-II (Special), Kottayam in E.A. No.2 of 2024 in E.P. No.105 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2023, of the sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 105 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge-II (Special), Kottayam. The said execution petition is filed by the respondent decree holder seeking execution of the award passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2023. The arbitration case is filed by the respondent under Section 9of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act” for brevity). The arbitrator passed Ext. R(a) award and the respondent herein was allowed to recover Rs. 142
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
