The High Court of Kerala dismissed an arbitration appeal challenging an order of attachment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that valid grounds existed while arbitration proceedings had not been initiated, noting the appellant subsequently initiated the proceedings.
The appeal is dismissed.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
ARB.A NO. 103 OF 2014 (C)
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2014 IN AOP No.127/2013 OF DISTRICT
COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT:
NEENA, W/o SHAIJU, 392, CHETHIKKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR KURISSUPALLY, MULLASSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680509.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.K.D.SREEVISAKH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
1 MANAPPURAM ASSET FINANCE LTD., REGD.OFFICE AT DOOR NO.111/05, OPP.NATTIKA FIRKA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK, VALAPPAD P.O., THRISSUR-680567, REP.BY FIELD OFFICER, ANIL KUMAR P.R., S/o RAMAN, PAMPUMKKATTIL HOUSE, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR-680010.
2 SHAIJU.C.R., S/o RAMAN, 392, (DELETED) CHETHIKKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR KURISSUPALLY, MULLASSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680509.
(THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 IN ARB.APPEAL 103/2014)
3 SHIJEESH, S/o KARAPPAN, THERVEETTIL HOUSE, NR.CHENGALI KORALI TEMPLE, MULLASSERY P.O., THRISSUR-680509.
R1 BY ADV SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Arb. Appeal No.103 o f 2014
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the order of attachment passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that without a valid ground, an order of attachment was passed. But it is now fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that arbitration proceedings are initiated. Hence, there is no merit for the said appeal. Appeal will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging an attachment order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowed since arbitration proceedings have been initiated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NEENA, W/o SHAIJU
MANAPPURAM ASSET FINANCE LTD.
SHAIJU.C.R.
SHIJEESH, S/o KARAPPAN
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
