Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula vs Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd on 27 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 10493 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. THARUN GOWDA
S/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO 6-A,
JANIVARA VILLAGE AND POST,
KASABA HOBLI, C R PATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573116
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. SHRIHARI.K., ADVOCATE)
AND
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD
Location: HIGH HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR,
COURT OF BMR COMPLEX, ABOVE KARNATAKA BANK,
KARNATAKA
B M ROAD, CHANNARAYAPATNA 573116,
REPRESENTED BY ITS G P A HOLDER
KESHAVAMURTHY S L
2. SRI B K VISHWANTH
ADVOCATE AND ARBITRATOR,
NO 02, 1ST FLOOR, BENAKA COMPLEX,
BESIDE ANDHRA BANK,
SHANKARMUTT ROAD, K R PURAM,
HASSAN 573201
3. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
3RD FLOOR, MOOKAMBIKA COMPLEX,
LADY DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPORE,
CHENNAI-600001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/
CHAIRMAN
4. KUMARASWAMY
S/O KALLAIAH,
R/AT MALLENALLI VILLAGE,
ANEKERE POST, D.G. HALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN-573116
5. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O RAMASHETTY,
R/AT #69, JANIVARA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
JANIVARA POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DIST-573116.
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.J. ALVA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. A.C.NO.1032/2019 & 1033/2019
PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ARBITRATOR AT
ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i. To quash the entire proceedings bearing No.
A.C.No.1032/2019 & 1033/2019 pending before the
2nd Respondent Arbitrator at Annexure A and B;
ii. Issue such other suitable writ or order on the facts
and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the widow, and Petitioner
No.2 claims to be the son of Manjunath, who expired
on 25-08-2018. The said Manjunath had availed two
loans, from 1st Respondent - Shriram Transport
Finance Company Limited, (hereinafter referred to as
'Shriram').
3. On the ground that the said Manjunath had not made
payment of the above loans, on his expiry, two legal
notices had been issued on 27-7-2019, to the
Petitioners calling upon them to repay the entire
amount of Rs.28,33,882/- towards full and final
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
settlement in respect of the vehicle loan towards
vehicle bearing No.KA13-B-4570 and a sum of
Rs.28,61,998/- towards the vehicle bearing
No.KA13-B-4571. It was also informed that if the
payments were not made, Shriram would appoint an
arbitrator. It is contended that Shriram indeed did
appoint an Arbitrator who had passed an order on an
application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') directing
the repossession of the hypothecated vehicles. It is
in that background that the Petitioners are before
this Court challenging the proceedings, as also the
order passed by the Arbitrator and seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
4. Ms.Neeraja Karanth, learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners, would submit that:
4.1. There is no notice which had been issued to
Sri.Manjunath during his lifetime. On his expiry,
the notice dated 27-7-2019 had been issued,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
calling upon the Petitioners to make payment of
the amounts as afore indicated, within seven
days of the receipt of the notice, failing which
the lawyer of Shriram had indicated that the
matter would be referred for arbitration to
Sri.B.K.Vishwanath, the 2nd Respondent herein.
Two notices have been issued on the very same
date; one for Vehicle bearing No.KA13-B-4570
and the other for Vehicle bearing No.KA13-B-
4571.
4.2. The notices having been issued on 27-07-2019,
even before that date, applications were filed
before the 2nd Respondent - Arbitrator on
12-07-2019 under Section 17 of the Act,
seeking for ad interim order authorizing
Shriram to seize and take possession of the
aforesaid vehicles.
4.3. On the very same day, the Arbitrator had
passed an order holding that the petition
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
discloses that the Respondents have not paid
the amount and trying to cause damage to the
vehicle and also trying to alienate the vehicles
to third parties with the intention to deprive
Shriram of the security and hence in the
interest of justice, the 2nd Respondent -
Arbitrator permitted the Respondent to
repossess the hypothecated vehicles, with the
help of jurisdictional police and retain the same
in the custody, till the disposal of the case. But
however, observed that if the amounts were
paid, the vehicles would be released, to the
Respondents' therein, that is the Petitioners'
herein.
4.4. The Claim Petition under Section 23 of the Act
was filed only on 10.8.2019. Thus, she submits
that a notice having been issued, on 27-7-
2019, calling upon the Petitioners to make
payment of the monies, failure thereof within 7
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
days would result in Arbitrator being appointed,
namely the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd
Respondent could not have entered reference
on 12-7-2019, even prior to his nomination
being made on 27-7-2019, and the order which
has been passed on 12-7-2019 is without
jurisdiction since the Arbitrator had not been
appointed, even unilaterally by Shriram.
4.5. She submits that there is no unilateral
appointment of an Arbitrator which could be
made by Shriram inasmuch as the agreement
entered into between the parties does not
provide for a named Arbitrator.
4.6. The Petitioners are not parties to the alleged
arbitration agreement and they have been
brought on record as only legal heirs of the
deceased Manjunath. Therefore, no proceedings
could have been initiated against the
Petitioners.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
4.7. Her submission is that upon a notice having
been issued on 27-7-2019, it should be a notice
in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The request
had been made only on 27-7-2019. If the
request were not to be accepted, it is the
procedure under Section 11 of the Act which is
required to be followed. There being no named
Arbitrator in terms of Subsection (5) of Section
11 of the Act, it could be treated as failure to
agree, to arrive at an agreement as regards the
appointment of an Arbitrator requiring Shriram
to approach this Court under Section 11 for
appointment of such an Arbitrator.
4.8. She submits that the entire procedure not
having been followed, even before the notice
was issued on 27-07-2019, the Arbitrator has
entered reference on 12-07-2019 and passed
an interim order directing repossession of the
hypothecated vehicles, which the Arbitrator was
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
not entitled to do so. Thus, the entire
proceedings which have been initiated by
Shriram is without any basis. The applicable
procedure has not been followed.
4.9. The details of the agreement have not been
made known to the Petitioners who are the
legal heirs of Sri.Manjunath. They are not
signatories to any agreement with Shriram.
They being only legal heirs without the
requirement of law being fulfilled, the impugned
orders could not have been passed.
4.10. She further submits that both the applications
under Section 17 filed before the Arbitrator and
the order passed by the Arbitrator appears to
be from the very same computer, very same
font has been used and as such the arbitration
proceedings initiated by Shriram are hogwash
and a staged arbitration proceeding to take
possession of the property of the Petitioners.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
5. Sri.M.J.Alva, learned Counsel appearing for Shriram
would submit that:
5.1. The procedure Shriram followed was proper and
correct. His contention is that Shriram was in
terms of the arbitration agreement, entitled to
appoint an Arbitrator of its choice, and as such
2nd Respondent has been appointed as an
Arbitrator. No fault can be found therewith.
5.2. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.23441-
23444/2022 dated 16.5.2024 more particularly
Paras 35 and 36 thereof which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
35. This Court has interpreted the term 'authority'
used in Article 226 in the case of Andi Mukta(supra),
wherein it was held as follows:
"17. There, however, the prerogative writ of
mandamus is confined only to public authorities to
compel performance of public duty. The 'public
authority' for them means everybody which is created
by statute--and whose powers and duties are defined
by statute. So government departments, local
authorities, police authorities, and statutory
undertakings and corporations, are all 'public
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
authorities'. But there is no such limitation for our
High Courts to issue the writ 'in the nature of
mandamus'. Article 226 confers wide powers on the
High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative
writs. This is a striking departure from the English
law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued to 'any
person or authority'. It can be issued 'for the
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for
any other purpose'.
***
20. The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in the
context, must receive a liberal meaning like the term
in Article 12.
Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of
enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32.
Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue
writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as
well as non-fundamental rights. The words 'any
person or authority' used in Article 226 are, therefore,
not to be confined only to statutory authorities and
instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any
other person or body performing public duty. The
form of the body concerned is not very much relevant.
What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on
the body. The duty must be judged in the light of
positive obligation owed by the person or authority to
the affected party. No matter by what means the duty
is imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus
cannot be denied." (emphasis supplied)
36. Further, in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar
Thomas 22, this Court culled out the categories of
body/persons who would be amenable to writ
jurisdiction of the High Court which are as follows:
"18. From the decisions referred to above, the
position that emerges is that a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii)
an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an
instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company
which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a
private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a
private body discharging public duty or positive
obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a
body under liability to discharge any function under
any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory
function."
5.3. By relying on R.S.Madireddy's case, he
submits that Shriram being a private company
would not be amenable to a jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as
such, this petition is required to be dismissed
as not maintainable.
6. Heard Ms.Neeraja Karanth, learned Counsel for the
Petitioners, Sri.M.J.Alva, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1 and perused papers.
7. The points that would arise for determination are:
1) Can one of the parties to an arbitration
agreement appoint an arbitrator without the
other party's consent?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
2) Whether a person who is the named
Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
can enter reference and pass orders without
the other person consenting thereto, or
without an order of appointment of
Arbitrator by institution or a Court under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996?
3) Is the reference entered into by 2nd
Respondent in the present matter proper and
correct?
4) Is the above Writ Petition maintainable?
5) What order?
8. I answer the above points as under:
9. Answer to Point No.1: Can one of the parties to
an arbitration agreement appoint an arbitrator
without the other party's consent?
9.1. The submission of Sri.M.J.Alva, learned Counsel
for Shriram is that in terms of the arbitration
agreement, Shriram was entitled to appoint an
Arbitrator. The Petitioners not having produced
the arbitration agreement, Shriram was called
upon to produce the same, which was also not
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
produced. Hence, the records were also secured
from the Arbitrator. A perusal of the records
indicates that the so-called arbitration
agreement is not even on the file of the
Arbitrator and does not accompany the claim
statement filed by Shriram.
9.2. Though there is a list of documents which has
been indicated to have been filed along with the
claim petition, on perusal of the file apart from
the power of attorney, no document has been
produced along with the claim petition.
9.3. The documents which are on records in
Arbitration Case No.1032/2019 are only the
claim petition, vakalathnama, list of documents,
power of attorney in favour of the authorised
representative of Shriram, copying application
filed by Shriram, returned covers of the notices
issued by the Arbitrator to the Petitioners which
have been returned with the endorsement 'door
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
locked', an application under Section 17 of the
Act dated 9-3-2020 along with the affidavit in
support thereof, an undated memo producing
the vehicle inventory and photos of the vehicles
seized and parked at Shriram Auto Mall, the
operative portion of the order dated 12-7-2019,
the interim order passed on 10-08-2021,
permitting the claimant to sell the vehicle,
memorandum of objections filed by
respondents, notice of reference dated
24-04-2019 and another application under
Section 17 dated 12-07-2019. Similar is the
situation in respect of Arbitration Case
No.1033/2019. In both the cases, along with
the claim petition, the documents which have
been produced are as under.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
THE CLAIMANT:-
1. Copy of general power of attorney dated 30.01.2015
Claimant in favour of Sri. Keshva Murthy S.L.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
2. Original Copy of Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement
02.05.2017 executed between claimant and the
respondents.
3. Certified Copy of B Extract of vehicle bearing Reg No.
KA-13-B-4571.
4. Office copy of the Arbitration Notice dated 24.04.2019
sent to the Respondents.
5. Postal receipts of notice dated 25.04.2019 (in two
numbers).
6. "Party Dead" returned postal cover of Respondent
No.1.
7. Office copy of the Arbitration Notice dated 27.06.2019
sent to the Respondents.
8. Postal Receipts of notice dated 11.04.2019.
9. "Out of Station" returned postal cover of Respondent
No.2.
10."Out of Station" returned postal cover of Respondent
No.3.
11."Served" postal acknowledgement of Respondent
No.4.
12.Statement of Accounts.
9.4. In both the above cases, the original copy of
the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement
executed between the claimant and
respondents therein has not been produced.
Despite opportunity being granted for Shriram
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
to produce the same, the same has not been
produced before this Court also. Thus, when
there is no agreement which is available on
record to indicate the existence or otherwise of
an arbitration clause. the question of Shriram
relying upon arbitration clause would not arise.
Since the arbitration agreement has not been
placed on record, it would have to be presumed
that there is no such arbitration agreement let
alone entitling Shriram to invoke arbitration
proceedings and appoint 2nd Respondent as an
Arbitrator.
9.5. Even assuming that there is an arbitration
agreement, the contents whereof is not clear.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, as
contended by Sri.M.J.Alva, learned Counsel for
Shriram, that the arbitration clause entitled
Shriram to appoint an Arbitrator, admittedly
even the said clause does not indicate a named
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
Arbitrator, but only entitles Sriram to appoint
an Arbitrator.
9.6. Shriram had issued a notice on 27-07-2019
indicating the nomination of 2nd Respondent as
an Arbitrator. This notice was not replied to by
the Petitioners. There was no consent which
was expressed by them to the appointment of
2nd Respondent as the sole Arbitrator, despite
which the Arbitrator has entered reference.
9.7. What is more crucial is that the Arbitrator has
entered reference and passed an order on
12-7-2019 when the notice itself was issued on
27-7-2019. Thus, even the exercise of the right
by Shriram to nominate an Arbitrator which was
so exercised on 27-7-2019 was prior to the
order being passed by the Arbitrator on 12-7-
2019. Suffice it to say that as on 12-7-2019,
there is no nomination of 2nd Respondent as an
Arbitrator, there was no appointment of the 2nd
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
Respondent as an Arbitrator, then the question
of 2nd Respondent passing such an order on
12-7-2019 would not arise.
9.8. The manner in which Shriram has acted in the
present matter categorically and unimpeachably
establishes the abuse of law resorted to by
Shriram. It is on the basis of this so-called
order dated 12-7-2019 passed by the 2nd
Respondent Arbitrator that police help has been
secured, the vehicles have been seized,
impounded and taken to the parking yard of
Shriram, which could never have been done by
Shriram since the applicable procedure and law
has not been followed. Shriram has abused the
process prescribed under the Act, nominated its
own person as an Arbitrator, who has passed
an order as an Arbitrator even before being
appointed, which has also been executed prior
to his appointment, and a memo has been filed.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
9.9. There is also substance in the submission of
Ms.Neeraja Karanth, learned Counsel that the
application and the order has been printed on
the very same machine since the fonts of both
the documents appear to be one and the same.
Of course, this would have to be determined by
an appropriate expert, in the enquiry which is
proposed to be ordered.
9.10. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that the
appointment of the 2nd Respondent as an
Arbitrator by Shriram is unilateral in nature,
which is not permissible. If the other party were
not to respond to the request of Shriram
favourably, it was for Shriram to approach this
Court under Section 11 of the Act, seeking the
appointment of any Arbitrator by this Court and
not to appoint an Arbitrator by itself and
proceed with the matter. The orders passed by
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
an arbitrator not properly appointed are non
est.
10. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a person who is
the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under
Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 can enter reference and pass orders
without the other person consenting thereto, or
without an order of appointment of Arbitrator
by institution or a Court under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
10.1. This issue has been partly dealt with in answer
to Point No.1 above. In the present matter, the
notice of nomination of an Arbitrator was issued
on 27-07-2019. However, the Arbitrator has
entered reference and passed orders on the
interlocutory application under Section 17 on
12-07-2019. The Arbitrator has apparently
acted on the statement made by Shriram that
he has been appointed as an Arbitrator and that
he has jurisdiction in terms of Article 15 of
aforesaid agreement. Paragraph 10 on the said
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
claim statement makes an interesting reading
which is reproduced hereunder:
10. The Claimant submits that, in above circumstances
the claimant is constrained to refer the matter to you for
the arbitration as you have been appointed as Arbitrator
by the parties to decide any claim and dispute arising
under the said agreement. The Hon'ble Arbitrator has
jurisdiction to try this matter as per provisions of Article
15 of above said agreement which is unambiguous with
respect to referring the disputes arising between the
claimant and respondents to Arbitrator.
Further as per the said agreement it is agreed that the
place arbitration shall be at Hassan, Karnataka.
Therefore the claimant prays that the Hon'ble Arbitrator
may pleased to admit the above claim and enquire into
the same and pass award against both the Respondents
directing the respondents to:
a. Jointly and severally pay the claimant a sum of
Rs. 28,61,998/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Sixty
One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Eight Only)
along with further interest @ 3% p.m. from the
date of claim petition till the date of realization in
full.
b. Pay the entire costs, and
c. Pass such other and further orders, as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice.
10.2. A perusal of Para 10 would indicate that the
claimant is constrained to refer the matter to
the Arbitrator for arbitration, as he has been
appointed as the Arbitrator by the parties to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
decide any claim and dispute arising under the
said agreement. As aforesaid, the agreement
has not been placed on record. Hence, the
Petitioners having denied that they had
appointed 2nd Respondent as an Arbitrator-
Shriram could not have stated, that the 2nd
Respondent has been appointed as the
Arbitrator by the parties to decide any claim.
10.3. An Arbitrator is supposed to be an independent
entity to decide the lis between the parties by
way of an Alternate Dispute Resolution process
in the form of an arbitration. The Arbitrator is
not a stooge for any party, nor is he a rubber
stamp for any party. In the present case, from
perusal of the record, it is clearly and
categorically seen, that the 2nd Respondent has
acted as a stooge and rubber stamp of Shriram
and has been more loyal than the king even
before he was nominated by Shriram to be an
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
Arbitrator on 27-07-2019, he has entered
reference on 12-07-2019 and passed an order,
directing repossession of the hypothecated
vehicle, with the help of jurisdiction police.
10.4. This Arbitrator who is also stated to be an
advocate, ought to have been aware of the
applicable law and in what manner, he can act.
By acting for and on behalf of Shriram, by
misusing his position as an Arbitrator, he has
directed seizure of a vehicle, with police help,
and the police have apparently given such help,
considering that it is an order passed by an
Arbitrator.
10.5. This is a complete abuse of the process of law,
misuse of the applicable procedure for the
benefit of Shriram and its officers, which is
required to be dealt with an iron hand. By
making use of such private forums with
appointment made of choice by Shriram,
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
Shriram has obtained benefit of repossession of
hypothecated vehicles using police help, has
impounded the vehicles and retained them in
its parking yard and thereafter under an order
passed by the very same unilaterally appointed
Arbitrator sold the vehicles and appropriated
the monies.
10.6. This would amount to, Shriram trying to
establish, a parallel dispute resolution
machinery under the guise of arbitration
without, any supervision, without any checks
and balances, which has resulted in such an
order being passed and subsequently, resulted
in the very same Arbitrator allowing the sale of
the vehicle.
10.7. These kind of orders are required to be passed
by an appropriate authority vested with
appropriate powers and not by an Arbitrator
like that in the present case, who has entered
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
reference even before being nominated, and
the Arbitration Clause/Agreement, despite
enough opportunities having been provided,
has not been placed on record by Shriram.
10.8. It would therefore be required that necessary
enquiry is held in this regard since Shriram has
dragged in the police, in terms of enforcing the
order of the Arbitrator, such enquiry would be
required to be held by the police to ascertain
the veracity thereof, of course, if required, with
the assistance of suitable experts.
10.9. Hence, the Director General of Police,
Karnataka, is directed to appoint a suitable
officer not below the rank of Superintendent of
Police to conduct an enquiry into the manner in
which the above proceedings were held and
submit a report within a period of six weeks
from today. If there are any other similar
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
complaints received necessary enquiry in
regard thereto would also have to be held.
10.10. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that a
person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice
issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot enter reference
and pass orders without the other person
consenting thereto, or without an order of
appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a
Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. Answer to Point No.3: Is the reference entered
into by 2nd Respondent in the present matter
proper and correct?
11.1. This aspect has been answered in Points No.1
and 2 above. The notice of reference issued on
27-7-2019, the Arbitrator could not have
entered reference and passed an order on
12-7-2019. The so-called Arbitrator has acted
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
as a stooge and rubber stamp of Shriram
requiring action to be taken against him.
11.2. Hence, I answer Point No.3 by holding that the
reference entered into by 2nd Respondent in the
present case is not correct.
12. Answer to Point No.4: Is the above Writ
Petition maintainable?
12.1. Sri M.J.Alva, the learned Counsel, appearing for
Shriram, has sought to vehemently contend
that a Writ Petition is not maintainable and, in
that regard, has relied upon the decision in
R.S.Madhireddy's case. His submission is that
Shriram being a private party, a Writ Petition
cannot be entertained.
12.2. This would have been so, if not for the manner
in which Shriram has acted inasmuch as, as
observed supra, Shriram has appointed a
private person as an Arbitrator without the
consent of the other party, namely the
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
Petitioners. Shriram has indulged itself in
misuse of the Act, obtained so-called order
from a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator for
repossession of a vehicle using police help.
Thus, making the police to act on the order of a
person who was not even appointed as an
Arbitrator. The actions on part of Shriram in
doing all the above by involving the
jurisdictional police, abusing the process of law,
misusing the arbitral mechanism, in my
considered opinion, would entitle this Court to
exercise its powers under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India to render effective
justice to the Petitioners who have been
deprived of their rights, by the above misuse on
part of Shriram.
12.3. If a Constitutional Court does not come to the
rescue of the Petitioners, that would amount to
denial of justice to the Petitioners, which cannot
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18406
WP No. 10493 of 2020
HC-KAR
be countenanced under any law. Hence, I
answer Point No.4 by holding that the present
Writ Petition is maintainable.
13. What order?
13.1. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) The Writ Petition is allowed.
2) The order passed by 2nd Respondent in A.C.No.1032/2019 and A.C.No.1033/2019 so also the entire proceedings in A.C.No.1032/2019 and A.C.No.1033/2019 are quashed.
3) Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police for necessary action.
4) Though the above petition is disposed, relist on 30.7.2025 to enable the nominee of the Director General of Police to submit a report.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 41