Kerala High Court
Sreekandan Nair S vs Mahindra And Mahindra Financial ... on 17 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 55 OF 2022
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SREEKANDAN NAIR.S, AGED 41 YEARS,
SON OF SADASIVAN NAIR, ASWATHY BHAVAN, 4-318 A,
MADAVILA LANE ROAD,
NEAR MADATHUNADA DEVI TEMPLE, SREEKARIYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.J.VISHNU
SMT.ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDING APOLLO,
BUNDER, MUMBAI-400001 WITH ITS CORPORATE OFFICE
AT SADHANA HOUSE, SECOND FLOOR, 570,
P.B. MARG WORLI MUMBAI 400018.
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
BALU S.R., DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL RECEIVABLE MGT,
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Sreekandan Nair.S, has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the submission that District Court, Thiruvananthapuram appointed Advocate Commissioner for possession of the vehicle possessed by the petitioner by passing an interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 without issuing notice to the respondent.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no interim award was passed by the Arbitrator, in this matter, when this case was heard on 13.01.2022. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the District Court passed an interim order to take possession of the vehicle. At this juncture, after doubting the submission, a copy of the CMA(Arb) No.115/2021 has been obtained through e-mail from the District Court, O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022 3 Thiruvananthapuram. On perusal of the same, it could be gathered that interim award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought to be executed through the District Court. The District Court has ample power to execute the award and the law is well settled. The grievance of the petitioner is that no notice was issued before appointing a Commission. This contention cannot be substantiated at all, since there is no legal mandate that the possession of the vehicle while executing an interim order, notice is mandatory to the respondent. The rational is that, if such an exercise is opted, there is likelihood of hiding the vehicle so as to defeat the execution. Decision reported in HDFC Bank Limited v. Manaf Arakkaveettil : 2018 (4) KHC 84 is on this point.
Therefore, I could not find any illegality O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022 4 in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, in a case, where the petitioner not challenged the interim award in any manner.
In view of the matter, this Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.
ww O.P.(C).No.55 of 2022 5 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 55/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN I.A.NO.2/2021 IN CMA(ARB) NO.115/2021 DATED 01.12.2021.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS SHEET OF THE CMA(ARB) CASE EXTRACTED FROM ECOURTS WEBSITE.