A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to challenge an interim order passed by an arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the statutory remedy under Section 34 must be exhausted first.

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of August, 2026

This Original Petition is filed challenging Exhibit P6 order dated 13.08.2019 of the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Pathanamthitta in I.A.No.585 of 2019 in O.P.(Arb.) No.66 of 2019. The said O.P.(Arb) arose out of Exhibit P5 interim order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the sole Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996'). A prayer for setting aside Exhibit P5 interim order of the learned Arbitrator has also been sought in this O.P.(C). Petitioners were respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P.(Arb.) and the respondent Company a financial institution was the petitioner therein.

The short facts relevant for disposal of this O.P.(C) are as follows:

The 1st petitioner had purchased a vehicle by availing a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the 1st respondent. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The loan was repayable in 48 equal monthly instalments (EMIs) of ₹14,600/- each, the total repayment amount being ₹7,00,800/-. According to the petitioners, they had already remitted a total sum of ₹13,07,858/- towards the loan. However, the 1st respondent attempted to repossess the vehicle alleging that a further sum of ₹1,70,000/- was due. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, which passed an order restraining the 1st respondent from repossessing the vehicle. It is alleged that, without disclosing the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the 1st respondent obtained an ex parte order (Exhibit P6 impugned herein) from the District Court for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the vehicle and to deliver the same to the 1st respondent. The petitioners thus challenge Exhibit P6 as erroneous and as one rendered in excess of jurisdiction. Exhibit P5 interim order of the learned Arbitrator is also challenged on the very same grounds.

Heard Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.Paulochan Antony, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.Sebastian Joseph, the learned counsel for the 3rd additional respondent in detail.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Exhibit P5 order passed by the sole Arbitrator is beyond the scope of Section 17 of the Act of 1996, and is ex facie without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the said order is hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since the 1st respondent had willfully suppressed the pendency of the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the facts and the applicable law and erroneously construed Exhibit P5 as an arbitral award. According to the learned counsel, Exhibit P5 is only an interim order and is beyond the scope of Sections 9 and 36 of the Act of 1996.

The learned counsel further contended that the learned District Judge ought to have found that the dispute was not arbitrable and that there was no prima facie material to sustain the arbitral proceedings. It is also argued that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that no prima facie case had been made out by the 1st respondent and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the orders passed by the sole Arbitrator and the District Court are unsustainable in view of the orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, and are contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is, therefore, prayed that Exhibits P5 and P6 be set aside. To buttress the contentions put forth, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supre