Sreekandan Nair S vs Mahindra And Mahindra Financial ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 759 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
 MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
                      OP(C) NO. 55 OF 2022
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            SREEKANDAN NAIR.S, AGED 41 YEARS,
            SON OF SADASIVAN NAIR, ASWATHY BHAVAN, 4-318 A,
            MADAVILA LANE ROAD,
            NEAR MADATHUNADA DEVI TEMPLE, SREEKARIYAM P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.J.VISHNU
            SMT.ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

            MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.,
            REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDING APOLLO,
            BUNDER, MUMBAI-400001 WITH ITS CORPORATE OFFICE
            AT SADHANA HOUSE, SECOND FLOOR, 570,
            P.B. MARG WORLI MUMBAI 400018.

            REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            BALU S.R., DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL RECEIVABLE MGT,
            MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.
     THIS    OP   (CIVIL)    HAVING   COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
17.01.2022,    THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME     DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022

                               2

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner, Sreekandan Nair.S, has

filed this Original Petition under Article 227

of the Constitution of India on the submission

that District Court, Thiruvananthapuram

appointed Advocate Commissioner for possession

of the vehicle possessed by the petitioner by

passing an interim order under Section 9 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

without issuing notice to the respondent.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that no interim award was

passed by the Arbitrator, in this matter, when

this case was heard on 13.01.2022. According

to the learned counsel for the petitioner the

District Court passed an interim order to take

possession of the vehicle. At this juncture,

after doubting the submission, a copy of the

CMA(Arb) No.115/2021 has been obtained through

e-mail from the District Court, O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022

Thiruvananthapuram. On perusal of the same, it

could be gathered that interim award passed by

the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought

to be executed through the District Court. The

District Court has ample power to execute the

award and the law is well settled. The

grievance of the petitioner is that no notice

was issued before appointing a Commission.

This contention cannot be substantiated at

all, since there is no legal mandate that the

possession of the vehicle while executing an

interim order, notice is mandatory to the

respondent. The rational is that, if such an

exercise is opted, there is likelihood of

hiding the vehicle so as to defeat the

execution. Decision reported in HDFC Bank

Limited v. Manaf Arakkaveettil : 2018 (4) KHC

84 is on this point.

Therefore, I could not find any illegality O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022

in the impugned order passed by the learned

District Judge, in a case, where the

petitioner not challenged the interim award in

any manner.

In view of the matter, this Original

Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

ww O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 55/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN I.A.NO.2/2021 IN CMA(ARB) NO.115/2021 DATED 01.12.2021.

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS SHEET OF THE CMA(ARB) CASE EXTRACTED FROM ECOURTS WEBSITE.