Kerala High Court
Benny vs The Sub Registrar on 8 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43851 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 BENNY
AGED 52 YEARS
AMBALATHU PARAMBIL, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683501
2 AMBROSE SHIBU
AGED 55 YEARS
OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, GODOWN ROAD, MANJUMMEL P.O.,
UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
BY ADV SHRI.ROHIT LOBO
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR ALANGAD, KONGORPILLY - ALANGAD -
KADUNGALLOOR ROAD, KONGORPPILLY, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKUALM,
PIN - 683518
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, NEAR ELOOR FERRY, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
3 M/S. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED), HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLDG NO 34/1845 A2, 2ND FLOOR, SAIRA PLAZA,
OPPOSITE MODERN BREAD, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, PIN - 682024
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. K.M FAISAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.12.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 43851/2025
-2-
2025:KER:95178
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025) The petitioners had availed a vehicle loan by hypothecation- cum-loan agreement from the 3rd respondent company to purchase a vehicle. Upon default in repayment of the loan, the 3 rd respondent had instituted Arbitration Proceedings as Arbitration Claim Petition No SRT/SJ/29 of 2021 before the Sole Arbitrator. Along with the arbitration claim petition, the 3rd respondent had filed I.A.No SRT/SJ/29-A/2022, for attachment of property belonging to the 2 nd petitioner having an extent of 1.01 ares in Old-Survey No 63/5, Survey No 35, Thandaper No 9689 of Eloor Village, Alangadu S.R.O., Emakulam District as per the Gift Deed No 3549/2000 of S.R.O. Alangadu dated 09.06.2000. The Arbitrator allowed the interim relief by Ext.P1 order, resulting in the attachment being recorded in the Encumbrance Certificate as F177/2022 on 26.07.2022. Subsequently, the parties amicably settled the dispute, and the entire claim of the 3rd respondent was cleared. Ext.P3 is the letter of intimation of settlement of loan and Non-Liability issued by the 3 rd respondent to the 1st petitioner.
2. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed I.A. No. SRT/SJ/29-2/2025 before the Arbitrator for lifting the attachment, which the Arbitrator allowed, and the attachment order was cancelled. WPC 43851/2025 -3-
2025:KER:95178 However, when this cancellation was communicated to Respondents 1 and 2, they refused to remove the attachment entry, insisting that an order from a competent court be produced. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the entry of attachment made pursuant to Ext.P1 order in I.A.No SRT/SJ/29-A/2022 in Arbitration Claim Petition No SRT/ SJ/29 of 2021 passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 14.07.2022 in the registration and revenue records of the 2nd petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233] wherein, it was held as follows:
"10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha WPC 43851/2025 -4- 2025:KER:95178 M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable or not in this proceedings.
11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this order by directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Finance Department to intimate all registrar as well as the revenue authorities not to record attachment order which is directly communicated by the arbitral tribunal unless and until it is communicated through the civil court by an order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it interferes with the order of attachment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of as above."
4. The relief sought in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance (supra). Therefore, it is found that the endorsement in respect of the attachment made by the Sub Registrar, upon the intimation of the Arbitrator, in the Encumbrance Certificate and other records is without authority. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of, WPC 43851/2025 -5- 2025:KER:95178 and the entry made in respect of the attachment made by the Arbitrator is nullified and the respondent No.1 is directed to delete the entry of attachment made therein.
The learned Government Pleader points out that a perusal of Ext. P3 would show that there are other attachments from the Sub Court as well as from a Co-operative Bank. Those attachments will subsist unless the same are vacated by the competent court.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS WPC 43851/2025 -6- 2025:KER:95178 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43851 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO SRT/SJ/29-A/2022 IN ARBITRATION CLAIM PETITION NO SRT/SJ/29 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 14.07.2022 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2025 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTIMATION OF SETTLEMENT OF LOAN AND NON-LIABILITY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.09.2025 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO SRT/SJ/29- 2/2025 IN ARBITRATION CLAIM PETITION NO SRT/SJ/29 OF 2021 ALONG WITH SCHEDULE PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 16.09.2025 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C.)NO 39670 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 10.11.2025