Kerala High Court
Suhaina A.P vs Cholamandalam Investment And ... on 21 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 135 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2/2021 IN
OP(ARBITRATION)NO.371/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT :
SUHAINA A.P.,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O.SAINUL HABEEB, MOOTHAMVEETTIL HOUSE,
OTTAKANDI, KOTAKKAD POST, TIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 319.
BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT :
1 M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE
CO.LTD.,
A COMPANY DARE HOUSE 2, NSC BOSE ROAD, PARRYS,
CHENNAI - 600 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED OFFICER SABU K., S/O.NALINAKSHNAN
(LATE), SENIOR EXECUTIVE - LEGAL,
M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE
CO.LTD., MARANATT CHAMBER, COURT ROAD, MANJERI,
PIN - 676 121.
2 MUHAMMED KOYA A.
S/O.KUNHALAN KUTTY, ATHIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
VALLIKKUNNU, VALLIKKUNNU POST, TIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 314.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.135 of 2022 ..2..
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
----------------------------------------------
O.P.(C)No.135 of 2022
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2022
JUDGMENT
Order in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.P.(Arbitration)No.371 of
2021 on the file of the District Court, Manjeri whereby, the District
Judge appointed Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the
vehicle hypothecated to the petitioner, while executing an interim
award passed by the Arbitrator, is under challenge in this petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that by executing the commission order, vehicle was
taken possession by the commissioner that would go to show that
the interim award passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 was executed.
O.P.(C)No.135 of 2022 ..3..
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no challenge raised as regards to the interim award
since the Arbitrator is at Chennai. Since the interim award of
attachment is not under challenge, this Court cannot interfere with
the matter and remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the interim
award before the appropriate forum as per law.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay the due and get back
the vehicle. This matter can be negotiated in between the
petitioner and the respondents. As such, nothing available in this
petition to be adjudicated by exercising power of superintendence.
Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rkj
O.P.(C)No.135 of 2022 ..4..
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 135/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2021
PASSED BY THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
AS I.A.NO.2/2021 IN O.P.(ARBITRATION)
NO.371/2021 DT. 24/11/2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF HE ORDER DATED 26/11/2021 IN
I.A.NO.2/2021 IN O.P.(ARBITRATION)
NO.371/2021 OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT
JUDGE, MANJERI.
