Kerala High Court
Udumbumthala Syndicate vs A T Shareef on 13 September, 2024
2024:KER:69877
R.P.No.899/2024
in A.R.No.174/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 899 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2024 IN AR NO.174 OF 2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 UDUMBUMTHALA SYNDICATE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
U N SAJITH, AGED 53, S/O T T P KUTTIALI, MUZHATHADAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
2 U N SAJITH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O T T P KUTTIALI, MANAGING
PARTNER, UDUMBUMTHALA SYNDICATE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
MUZHATHADAM, KANNUR, DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 A T SHAREEF, S/O K AHAMMED, RESIDING AT AMAL, KANNUKARA,
P O THANA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012
2 A T ABDUL KHAREEM, S/O K AHAMMED, RESIDING AT HALF MOON
ALLIANCE GARDENS, WELLESLEY ROAD, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
3 U MOHAMMED, S/O T T P KUTTIALI, RESIDING AT UDUMBUMTHALA
NALUPURAPAD, MUZHUTHADAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
4 T EMTHYAS, S/O ZAINUL ABIDEEN , 11-B P, WESTBAY
APARTMENTS, ANJUKANDI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670017
ADV.SRI.K.SURENDRAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:69877
R.P.No.899/2024
in A.R.No.174/2022 2
G.GIRISH, J.
---------------
R.P.No.899 of 2024
in
A.R.No.174 of 2022
------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
--------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner in A.R No.174/2022 has filed this petition
seeking review of the order dated 15.07.2024 dismissing the
said Arbitration Request.
2. The aforesaid Arbitration Request was dismissed
doubting the genuineness of Arbitration Agreement dated
17.07.2007 relied on by the petitioner. The genuineness of the
above Arbitration Agreement was doubted mainly due to the
reason that the said agreement which was purportedly executed
on 17.07.2007, was found to have been prepared in a document
which contained the treasury seal of the stamp paper revealing
that it was issued only on 23.07.2007. So also, the seal of the
2024:KER:69877
stamp vendor showed that the aforesaid stamp paper was sold
to the parties only on 28.07.2007. In addition to that, the
aforesaid document contained an endorsement in page No.16
that the said document was executed on some day in the month
of May, 2007. Thus, the incongruency in the said document
insofar as it relates to the date mentioned at the opening
sentence as 17.07.2007, and the endorsement in page No.16
about the execution of the document on some day in May, 2007,
was stated as a reason to disbelieve the genuineness of that
document. Though many grounds are stated in this petition for
the review of the said order dated 15.07.2024 in A.R
No.174/2022, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, at
the time of arguments, submitted that the main grievance of the
review petitioner pertains to the observation of this Court in
paragraph No.8 of the said order that the document relied on by
the petitioner is manifestly tampered and manipulated.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above
observation made by this Court in an Arbitration Request would
have far reaching consequences in other proceedings, which
2024:KER:69877
might be initiated by the petitioner before a regular court or
other competent authorities. There is no scope of any enquiry
in detail, about the tampering of Arbitration Agreement, in an
Arbitration Request, and that the perception of the Court upon a
mere perusal of the document and the submissions of the
learned counsel representing the respondent, should not have
been the basis for arriving at a conclusion that the document
relied on by the petitioner was manifestly tampered and
manipulated, it is submitted. Thus, according to the petitioner,
the purpose of this review petition would be fulfilled if this Court
makes a clarification to the effect that the observations made
with reference to the genuineness of the document which the
petitioner has produced as Arbitration Request, is limited to the
adjudication of the Arbitration Request, and that it may not be
followed in any other proceedings between the parties before
any other court or competent authorities.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner,
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
2024:KER:69877
review petitioner, the observation of this Court doubting the
genuineness of the Arbitration Request, which the petitioner has
produced as Annexure VI and Annexure I agreements, was one
made by simply referring to the contents of the said document.
There was no detailed enquiry on the matter of the genuineness
of that document in that Arbitration Request since it was prima
facie impossible to execute the agreement on 17-07-2007 in a
stamp paper issued only on 23-07-2007. That being so, the
observation of this Court about the manipulation and tampering
of that document, has to be taken as one made for the limited
purpose of the Arbitration Request, and it shall not have any
binding effect in any other proceedings between the parties.
Hence the present review petition can be disposed of by making
a clarification that the observation made by this Court with
regard to the tampering and manipulation of Annexure I and
Annexure VI agreements, was intended only for the purpose of
the proceedings in the Arbitration Request, and that it cannot
have any binding effect in any other proceedings.
2024:KER:69877
In the result, the review petition is disposed of as follows:
It is hereby made clear that the observation made by this
Court in the order dated 15.07.2024 in A.R.No.174 of 2022
about the genuineness of the arbitration agreement produced by
the petitioner as Annexure I and Annexure VI, and also about
the manipulation and tampering, in view of the discrepancies in
the dates mentioned at different pages, cannot have any binding
effect in any other proceedings. The challenge, if any, raised by
the parties in respect of the genuineness of the said document,
in any proceedings before any court or other competent
authorities, shall be adjudicated by the said authorities or
courts, on merits, untrammelled by any of the observations
made by this Court in the order dated 15-07-2024 in AR
No.174/2022.
(sd/-)
G.GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
