Augustine Jackson Dauravoa vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 7897 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

       MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.20201 OF 2014(A)


PETITIONER/S:

       1        AUGUSTINE JACKSON DAURAVOA
                AGED 38 YEARS
                S/O.FRANCIS DAURAVOA,19/2004-H,JACK
                VILLA,NAMBIAPURAM,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI 682 006

       2        GREENE JACKSON DAURAVOA
                AGED 35 YEARS
                W/O AUGUSTINE JACKSON DAURAVOA,19/2004-H,JACK VILLA, 40
                FEET ROAD, NAMBIAPURAM,PALLURUTHY,KOCHI 682 006

                BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

                THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD
                KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,1ST FLOOR,,CEEBROS
                CENTRE,39,MONTIETH ROAD,EGMORE,CHENNAI 600 008

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2021,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 20201/2014               :2:




              Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021.

                            JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

relief:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to accept the arrears of Rs.8,91,256/- (Eight Lakhs ninety one thousand two hundred and fifty six only) along with interest by 15 equal monthly instalments till the liability discharged for the interest of justice.

2. The subject matter relates to the proceedings initiated by the

Kotak mahindra Bank Ltd., Chennai on the basis of the higher purchase

loan secured by the petitioners. Apparently, from the documents

produced by the petitioners itself, it is clear that consequent to the

default on the part of the petitioners, arbitration proceedings in

accordance with the agreement executed by and between the parties

were proceeded with after issuing notice to the petitioners and an

award was passed, evident from Ext. P1 after providing an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioners on, 29.10.2013. It is also clear from the

award passed that the seat of the arbitration was at Chennai.

3. In that view of the matter, and since the parties have agreed

for conducting arbitration at the place of their choice, I do not think,

the petitioners are entitled to file a writ petition or other proceedings

within the State of Kerala. So also, since an award is passed, it is to

be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, I do not think, the

petitioners are entitled to get the relief as is sought for against the

award passed by the Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement

executed by and between the parties.

Needless to say, writ petition fails and accordingly, it is

dismissed.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 AWARD DATED 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 IN ACP NO 6147/2013 OF THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DEEPA V, ADVOCATE

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 31/7/2014

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv