[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Cheraman Financial Services Limited vs Reserve Bank Of India on 10 December, 2025
W.A.No.2915 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:94446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2915 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.20337 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:
CHERAMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
33/2337- E, 2ND FLOOR, CHAKIAPADATH BUILDING, BYPASS
ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, COCHIN-. REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER MR. RAMESH SHENOI, AGED
43YEARS, S/O SURENDRA SHENOI, RESIDING AT ADAMUKKATH
HOUSE, TAGORE NAGAR, OPP MATTOOR TEMPLE, EROOR,
TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
SRI.BIJISH B.TOM
SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY
SMT.NEVIS CASSANDRA L CAXTON LORETTA
SMT.BABY SONIA
SHRI.KRISHNA KUMAR T.K.
SHRI.KARUN MAHESH
SMT.MEGHA JOSEPH
SRI.GOVIND VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR
SMT.ROSHNI MANUEL
SMT.KALYANI NANDAGOPAL
SMT.AGNES SABU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
19TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT
SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 400001
2 ICICI BANK LTD
UDAYA TOWERS, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD KERALA,REP BY
W.A.No.2915 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:94446
ITS MANAGER, PIN - 678001
3 KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD
KRISHNA TOWERS, 10/259(9), VELLAN STEET, SULTHANPET,
PALAKKAD, KERALA . REP BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 678001
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2025, THE COURT ON 10.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2915 of 2025
: 3 :-
2025:KER:94446
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 2915 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.20337/2025 challenging the judgment dated 18.7.2025 dismissing
the writ petition.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner is a company promoted by the
Kerala State Industries Development Corporation and it is involved in
the business of providing financial services, carrying out equipment
leasing and hire purchase finance activities. When the "Hirer" and
'Guarantors' committed default in payment of hire purchase rentals, a
dispute arose between the appellant and the "Hirer" and
"Guarantors". Accordingly, as per the Arbitration Clause in the
agreement, the appellant filed an Arbitration Request as AR No.227 of
2023 before this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for
determining the dispute. The said Arbitration Request was allowed as
per Ext.P1 judgment dated 21.2.2024. Consequently, the arbitration
proceedings, as AC No.227/2023, commenced before the Arbitrator
: 4 :-
2025:KER:94446
and the appellant filed a claim petition. During the course of the
arbitration proceedings, the appellant also filed an application under
Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act 'for short) for attachment of the Bank Accounts of the
"Hirer" and "Guarantors" maintained with the 2nd and 3rd respondent
banks, in order to secure the amount in dispute. As per Ext.P2 order
dated 12.11.2024, the learned Arbitrator allowed the application.
Consequently, Ext.P2 order was also communicated to 2 nd and 3rd
respondent Banks for compliance. But, 2 nd and 3rd respondent did not
comply with the order. Hence, the appellant approached this Court by
filing the afore writ petition and seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to comply with
Exhibit P2 interim attachment order passed by the Arbitrator
appointed by this Hon'ble Court.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the Respondent No.1 to issue a common
direction/circular to all Banks operating under its License to adhere
to and comply with the orders issued by Arbitrators appointed by
Court of Law."
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on
record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.
4. Heard Adv.Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant on admission.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that after
: 5 :-
2025:KER:94446
the amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in 2015, as
per Section 17(2), the orders passed under Section 17(1) by the
Arbitral Tribunal can be enforced by the Arbitral Tribunal itself, as per
the provisions of the CPC, since the order thus passed is deemed to
be an order passed by the civil court. He also submitted that the
amendment was effected on the basis of the recommendations of the
Law Commission of India to provide teeth to the interim orders
passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan [(2017) 16 SCC
119)] to support his contentions.
6. In the instant case, at the outset itself it is to be taken note
that, even though the first prayer in the writ petition is for a direction
to respondents 2 and 3 to comply with Ext.P2 interim attachment
order passed by the Arbitrator, it is to be seen that the appellant has
not arrayed the parties, against whom Ext.P2 order has been passed,
in the writ petition. They, being necessary parties to the writ petition,
we are of the view that non impleading them is fatal to the writ
petition.
7. That apart, it is to be seen that even though, the learned
counsel for the appellant would contend that as per Section 17(2) of
the Act, Arbitral Tribunal itself is having the power to execute its own
interim order, he could not point out any specific provisions enabling
: 6 :-
2025:KER:94446
the same. Section 17(2) of the Act do not, confer any power upon the
arbitral tribunal to enforce its own orders. Further, the decision relied
on by the appellant in Alka Chandewar's case (cited supra) also
does not support the afore contention of the appellant. On the other
hand, it is to be taken note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future
Retail Limited & Others [(2022) 1 SCC 209] and this Court in the
decision in Pradeep K.N. v. Station House Officer, Perumbavoor &
Anr [2016(2) KLT 381] has categorically held that an arbitral tribunal
cannot itself enforce its orders and the same can only be done by a
court, with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure. If so, in the light
of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it can be safely concluded
that there is no mandate upon any banks, much less the Reserve
Bank of India, to comply with the orders issued by the Arbitrators.
Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
: 7 :-
2025:KER:94446
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2915 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE 246TH LAW
COMMISSION REPORT FROM AUGUST 2014
