Judicial interference in arbitration is limited, and alternative remedies must be pursued before invoking Article 227.

ORDER

This revision petition, at the unnumbered stage, has been listed before me under the caption 'for maintainability'.

2.This revision has been filed, challenging the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the sole Arbitrator in M.P.No.85 of 2022 in A.P.No.85 of 2022. The registry has returned the revision, stating that it is not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner has requested the matter to be listed before the Court, for arguing on the maintainability of the revision.

3.Today, Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared and advanced his submissions. Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent, representing to be the owner of the subject property under sale deed dated 21.02.2017, had also informed the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent had executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds on the very same day of his purchase, namely 21.02.2017 and the property has been mortgaged for sum of Rs.21,50,000/-.

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner made enquiries with the bank and came to know that the bank had already declared the 2^nd respondent's loan account as a non-performing asset and symbolic possession was also taken on 22.01.2022 under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent approached the bank and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.28 lakhs in full and final settlement on or before 02.06.2022 and the said sum was also debited from the petitioner's account, for which, discharge of loan receipt was issued by the bank and the same was also registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar II, Coimbatore and original documents were handed over to the 2^nd respondent, who thereafter conveyed the property to the petitioner, in and by a sale deed dated 04.06.2022.

5.It is the further case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the petitioner has also effected mutation of revenue records in his name and while things stood there, the petitioner received a notice dated 23.01.2024, from the 1^st respondent, claiming that the respondents 2 and 3 had obtained a loan from the 1^st respondent and as they had failed to repay the amounts borrowed, arbitration proceedings were initiated and in MP.No.85 of 2022, by order dated 17.09.2022, the subject property of the petitioner has been attached.

6.It is therefore contended by Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner had already purchased the property on 04.06.2022, the Arbitrator could not have proceeded to order attachment of the property on 17.09.2022. It is also contended by Mr.L.Mouli that all the original documents of title have been handed over by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the 1^st respondents that there has been a mortgage in his favor cannot be true. Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that this Court has powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere and set aside the order of attachment passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.

7.The primordial contention of Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a third party to the arbitration proceedings and since his valuable property has been attached, he has no other alternate remedy, other than moving this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8.Without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, I am unable to countenance the submissions of Mr.L.Mouli, that the petitioner has no other alternate remedy. Under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, an appeal can be preferred as against any interim orders passed by the Arbitrator, pending arbitration proceedings. Even if the petiti