Appeal against Single Judge order directing return of a vehicle forcibly repossessed on strength of an ex-parte interim arbitral order. Bench confirmed order allowing repossession to proceed pending final award.
Appeal allowed, return order directed against 1st respondent, leave granted for early hearing of writ petition.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No. 1632 of 2017 IN WPC. 18082/2017
AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 18082/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-07-2017
APPELLANT(S)/5TH RESPONDENT
M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. KATTAPPANA BRANCH, (WRONGLY WRITTEN AS M/S.SHRIRAM FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,IN WPC) SECOND FLOOR, KANAKKARIL BUILDING, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND EDASSERY JUNCTION, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI 685 515 REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.RAJU THOMAS BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN (SR.) SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.D.G.VIPIN SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY SRI.P.P.KURIEN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-4:
WA.No. 1632 of 2017 IN WPC. 18082/2017
R2 TO R5 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU R1 BY SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
Writ Appeal No. 1632 of 2017 -----------------------------------------Dated: 06th March, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, C.J.
The 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 18082 of 2017 is the appellant. It appears that the 1st respondent had availed a vehicle loan from the appellant. Default was committed and on the basis of the agreement between the parties, arbitration proceedings were initiated. It appears that the Arbitrator passed an ex-parte interim order enabling the appellant to repossess the vehicle. On the strength of the interim order, according to the 1st respondent, with police assistance the vehicle was forcefully repossessed. It was thereupon the writ petition was filed. By order dated 18th July, 2017, the learned Single Judge directed return of the vehicle. It is this order which is impugned before us.
W.A. No. 1632/2017
-2-
W.A. No. 1632/2017
-3-
the order impugned would show that what persuaded the learned Single Judge appears to be his inference that the possession of the vehicle was with police assistance, which cause of action already stands disapproved by this Court in
Pradeep K.N. v. SHO, Perumbavoor [2016 (2) KLT 381] . Considering these factual issues, to our mind, the proper course is to confirm the order under appeal and leave it open to the appellant to seek early hearing of the writ petition itself.
Therefore, we dispose of the appeal accordingly.
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
jjj 06/03/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the repossession of a vehicle based on an ex-parte interim arbitraral order is correct before final award.
Whether police assistance in repossession causes action approved by this Court in Pradeep K.N. v. SHO.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Krishna Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶27
Shri Krishna Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2012 (6) KLT 969
M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD.
AJESH
STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, IDUKKI
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KATTAPPANA
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KATTAPPANA
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
