Kerala High Court
Nehru Trophy Boat Race Soceity vs Vismaya Ventures India Private Ltd on 25 October, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/3RD KARTHIKA, 1935
FAO.No. 279 of 2013 ()
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 118/2013 of SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA
-----------------
APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. NEHRU TROPHY BOAT RACE SOCEITY,
ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED B ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
NEHRU TROPHY BOAT RACE SOCIETY
ALAPPUZHA (DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA).
BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL
SRI.BOBBY THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------
VISMAYA VENTURES INDIA PRIVATE LTD,
OFFICE AT GCRRA, NMO.10, SANATHANAPURAM
ALAPPUZHA-688003.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT)
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
SMT.APARNA C.MENON
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
FAO No.279 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This appeal by the Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society and its Chairman, who is the District Collector, Alappuzha, is against the order by which the court below has attached the amounts lying in deposit with a Bank in the name of the first appellant.
2.Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not stand, it having been issued following a wrong procedure. The court below, at best, could have issued only an order of conditional attachment, also calling upon the defendants to furnish security and to show cause against such attachment.
3.We are also told by the learned senior counsel for the appellants FAO 279/13 -2- that the question as to the maintainability of the suit was raised before the court below with reference to an arbitration clause and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for short, 'A&C Act'.
4.The functioning of the first appellant Society cannot be stultified, if the appellants give security to the satisfaction of the plaint claim. This could also be an undertaking in the form of a simple bond, having regard to the involvement of the District Collector and other governmental interests, subject to the satisfaction of the court below. Therefore, the impugned order is vacated, and I.A.No.295 of 2013 in O.S.No.118 of 2013 filed before the Sub Court is remitted for reconsideration, in accordance with law. We also clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of consideration of any application under the A&C Act stated to have been filed on the basis of the alleged arbitration clause in the agreement. However, we need to notify the court below that if FAO 279/13 -3- there is any application under the A&C Act, the settled position of law is that such application has to be considered before proceeding further. All that shall be done untrammelled by anything stated in the order impugned. Any findings regarding the arbitration agreement made in the impugned order will stand vacated hereby. This appeal is ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg/25/x