LAWS(KER)-2020-12-390

K.K.IBRAHIM Vs. COCHIN KAGAZ LTD

Decided On December 01, 2020
K.K.Ibrahim Appellant
V/S
Cochin Kagaz Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.(Arb)No.169/2019 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(for short, 'the Act') seeking an order of attachment of petition schedule 19.787 Ares of land and machineries therein, was dismissed by the Additional District Court, North Paravur. The impugned order dated 25.02.2020 refusing attachment is challenged by the petitioner through this appeal.

(2.) The respondent/company agreed to sell scrap and machineries to appellant under Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) dated 31.01.2017. The appellant purchased the goods and paid substantial amounts. Some more amount is still outstanding towards the balance purchase price. The appellant claims that he entered into an agreement with third parties to sell the goods purchased from the respondent. According to the appellant, some of the goods sold and kept in the petition schedule land are yet to be removed by him. But, the respondent by its high-handed action has withheld the goods and proposed to sell them along with the petition schedule land. It is stated that the appellant suffered huge loss on account of the alleged breach of contract committed by the respondent. The stand taken by the respondent/company is that all the goods purchased by the appellant were already removed from the premises and some amount towards value of goods is outstanding due. It set up a rival claim of loss and sought damages from the appellant.

(3.) As per the relevant clause in MoU dated 31.01.2007, arbitral disputes to be resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal arose between parties. The contention of the appellant in O.P. (Arb)No.169/2019 is that until the claim for damages is determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the petition schedule land, machineries etc. have to be kept intact and if the immovable property and assets are transferred in the meantime, the appellant may not be in a position to recover the loss from the respondent. It is with this object, interim measure of protection by way of attachment of immovable property was sought.