High Court dismissed by its order the appeal filed by appellant against District Court's order granting injunction instead of receiver. Court held that since award was passed and executable, Section 9 jurisdiction is not needed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933
Arb.A.No. 29 of 2011 ----------------------------[ARB(OP).NO.1139/2009 OF IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM] ....................
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TML FINANCE SERVICE LTD) HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT S.L.PLAZA, GROUND FLOOR, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN – 682 005, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS LETTER OF AUTHORITY HOLDER RAJ C.R, AGED 28 YEARS, KERALA STATE LEGAL HEAD, TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED, ERNAKULAM, KERALA.
BY SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------------------
1. SRI.NAZEER.M., S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, 9/377, KUTTITHARA THEKKETHIL, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY – 690 503, KERALA.
2. SMT.SAPHIYA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KUTTITHARAYIL, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALLEPPEY – 688 004, KERALA.
BY
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
prv.
C.R. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
Arb.A. No.29 of 2011
------------------------------------------Dated this the 1st June, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
This appeal, under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed by the appellant who was the claimant before the arbitrator. At a time when the arbitral proceedings had not commenced, the appellant had gone to the District Court claiming relief under Section-9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant is a financier and the respondent had availed a loan from the appellant for purchase of vehicle under a hypothecation agreement which contained a stipulation regarding repossession. There was default in payment of monthly instalments due. Invoking the provisions in the loan/hypothecation agreement for arbitration, the dispute was referred for arbitration. Inter alia the relief of appointment of a receiver to repossess the vehicle was claimed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act. The District Court by the impugned order granted
Arb.A.29 of 2011 2
the lesser relief claimed - of injunction against alienation. It is brought to our notice that even on the date of the impugned order the award had already been passed. That fact, it is submitted at the Bar, was brought to the notice of the learned judge also. However, the learned judge by the impugned order took up for consideration only the point whether the appellant is entitled to get an order of injunction as prayed for.
Arb.A.29 of 2011 3
by the arbitrator. That means that the award passed by the arbitrator is ripe for execution. The appellant can certainly seek execution of the award.
Arb.A.29 of 2011 4
execution under Section-36, we find no reason to invoke the discretion under Section-9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any sufficient and adequate reason to invoke such jurisdiction to pass directions post award. For that reason, we feel that this appeal does not deserve admission.
Arb.A.29 of 2011 5
situation, we find no adaequate reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act. It is hence that we say that this does not appear to us to be a fit case for admission. This appeal is in these circumstances dismissed.
sd/- R.BASANT JUDGE
sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE
css/
true copy
P.S.TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain an appeal under Section 37 by the claimant against an interim injunction granted under Section 9 after the award is already passed and executable.
Whether the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint a receiver exists independently when the award is ripe for execution under Section 36.
Whether there are sufficient reasons to invoke interim relief jurisdiction post-award when execution proceedings are available.
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD
SRI. NAZEER.M.
SMT. SAPHIYA BEEVI
R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
