SIGMATIC NIDHI LTD. Vs. FRISON ANTO. M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the decree holder in Execution Petition E.P No.552 of 2022, before the District Court, Thrissur, which was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order, based on the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, not in accordance with the amended Act.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit and also a petition to lift the attachment already effected by this Court. This Court has already passed an order on 14/3/2025, ordering conditional attachment of the property shown in Ext.P5, for a period of two weeks, subject to furnishing of security. This order is sought to be vacated by the respondents.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Sec. 9 petitions are already pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court-III, Thrissur, in MA (ARB) No. 79 of 2025, wherein they have already moved a petition under Sec. 9 for the attachment of the property. But the petitioner has preferred this O.P(C) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reason that only the notice was issued and conditional attachment was not granted. When an application is filed under Sec. 9, it is for the petitioner to get the orders from the same court itself, but taking into consideration the urgency, the interim conditional attachment was granted by this Court. The respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that there is a mortgage existing and without proceeding with the mortgage property, they cannot attach any other property of the petitioner. This question is to be agitated before the Court where MA (Arb) proceedings is pending.