[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Karmali vs M/S.Sml Finance Ltd on 20 January, 2026
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:5186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KARMALI,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O.VARGHESE, CHANAYIL HOUSE, MANUEL ROAD,
CHERANALLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682034
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR
SMT.D.SARITHA
SHRI.MANU MURALI T.
SHRI. JOHN MANJOORAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S.SML FINANCE LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SML BUILDING,
TOLL JUNCTION, PUKKATTUPADY ROAD, EDAPPALLY,
COCHIN, PIN - 682024
2 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM SRO,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
3 ADVOCATE SABU S., ARBITRATOR,
3RD FLOOR, VALLAMATTOM, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682018
4 DAVID P.X.,
S/O.XAVIER, VADAKKEVELIYIL HOUSE, ADARSH NAGAR,
THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD, NEAR SREEKRISHNAN TEMPLE,
ERNAKULAM, KERARA, PIN - 682037
MABLE C. KURIAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:5186
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 20th day of January, 2026)
The petitioner had applied for a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from the
Cheranelloor Co-operative Society Bank by hypothecating her property for
the medical treatment of her husband, but during the processing it came to
her knowledge that the said property had already been attached pursuant to
an interim order passed in I.A. No.3/2021 in Arb. Ref. No.3/2021. It is
contended that the interim order was passed without issuing any notice to
the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity of being heard, on
the basis of suppressed and misleading facts. No summons were issued
either to the petitioner or to the 4th respondent, and the petitioner had no
prior knowledge of the arbitration proceedings. The petitioner submits that
her loan application is still pending before the Co-operative Society and
seeks the urgent lifting of the attachment to enable alienation of her sole
property for meeting her emergent needs.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to lift the
attachment, considering Ext.P3 surrendering letter.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to initiate
steps to lift the attachment of the petitioner's property.
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
2026:KER:5186
iii) Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
iv) The petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of
translation of vernacular documents."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233] wherein, it was
held as follows:
"10. The question is what is the remedy then available
for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of
attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is
not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court,
necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his
objection against the enforcement or even after the
enforcement, the third party can very well raise an
objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the
property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure
provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a
claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the
writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any
remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such
interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the
tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement
and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ
petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the
enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court
when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not
enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is
deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if
the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the
property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the
maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
2026:KER:5186
court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is
not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable
or not in this proceedings.
11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the
arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly
intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and
the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified.
Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or
any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by
the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced
through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub
Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct
intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment
unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We
direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this
order by directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department and Finance Department to intimate all
registrar as well as the revenue authorities not to record
attachment order which is directly communicated by the
arbitral tribunal unless and until it is communicated
through the civil court by an order. Therefore, we set aside
the impugned judgment to the extent it interferes with the
order of attachment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is
disposed of as above."
4. The relief sought in the writ petition is covered by the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram
Transport Finance (supra). Therefore, it is found that the
endorsement in respect of the attachment made by the Sub
Registrar, upon the intimation of the Arbitrator, in the registration
certificate and revenue records is without authority. Hence, the
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
2026:KER:5186
entry made in respect of the attachment made by the Arbitrator is
nullified and the 1st respondent is directed to delete the entry of
attachment made therein within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
GBG
WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
2026:KER:5186
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26565 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
NO.2549/25, DATED 12/2/2025, OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN RE.SY.NO.102/12/2
Exhibit- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION ORDER DATED
2/2/2021
Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF SURRENDERING LETTER DATED
4/9/2021, SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
