Original Petition challenging an order allowing possession of a security vehicle in installments. Court held District Court violated Section 17 of the Act by modifying arbitration direction and quashed the lower court order.
Order of District Court permitting possession of vehicle in installments was set aside
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941
OP(C).No.170 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 6279/18 IN CMA 662/2018 DATED 01-01-2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 27BKC C-27, BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-40005, AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, THADIKKARAN CENTRE, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SEENESH PRABHAKARAN.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MOHAMMED RAFI C.S., AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.SAITHU, CHEMBIKATTU HOUSE, WEST VELIYATHU NADU P.O., KARUMALLORE, ERNAKULAM.
2 SEMIN RAFI, AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.MOHAMMED RAFI, CHEMBIKATTU HOUSE, WEST VELIYATHU NADU P.O., KARUMALLORE, ERNAKULAM.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Case No. OP(C) 170/19
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Financier, who filed application before the Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'the Act'), praying for an interim direction to permit the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 42-J-414 from the possession of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Court in C.M.A. (Arb.) No.662 of 2018. As per the order of the District Court, the vehicle was seized. Thereafter, the first respondent filed I.A. No.6279 of 2018 in C.M.A.(Arb) No.662 of 2018 before the District Court concerned requesting the court for directing the petitioner to release the vehicle to the first respondent receiving the amount in installments. The court below as per Ext.P4 order, allowed the said application against, which this Original Petition has been filed.
Case No. OP(C) 170/19
-3-
Court has only the power to enforce the interim orders passed by the Arbitrator under Section 17(1) of the Act and the District Court lacks power in issuing any other direction.
In the result, this O.P.(C) stands allowed.
sd
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
dl/
Case No. OP(C) 170/19
-4-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.I.A.NO.146/2018 IN A/C NO.165/2018 UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMA (ARBN) NO.662/2018 ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VIII, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.6279/2018 IN CMA (ARB.) NO.662/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE FILES OF HONURABLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VIII, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2019 IN I.A.NO.6279/2018 IN CMA (ARB.) NO.662/2018 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE FILES OF HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VIII, ERNAKULAM.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Court exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting possession of secured asset in installments contrary to arbitrator’s order under Section 17 of the Act
Scope of Enforcement Court’s power under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
HDB Financial Services Limited v. Kings Baker Private LimitedRelied on¶5
HDB Financial Services Limited v. Kings Baker Private Limited [2019 (1) KLT 784]
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED
MOHAMMED RAFI C.S.
SEMIN RAFI
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
