SADANANDA BAI Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the police to give her necessary protection to assume charge as receiver of a firm, on the strength of Ext. P10 order passed by the District Court, Thrissur and also to continue to discharge the functions of the receiver.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is one of the partners of a firm called "Blissotel" at Thrissur. The said firm is running a hotel, which is having a bar licence, issued in the name of its Managing Partner. Disputes arose between her and the Managing Partner. The dispute between them concerning the sharing of the profits of the firm was referred for arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrators, by a majority, passed Ext.P8 award on 04.12.2007, permitting the petitioner to realise an amount of Rs. 3,49,440/ - from the 1st respondent Managing Partner and his assets, as share of profits from the bar hotel for the years 2005 -06 and 2006 -2007. The amount was to carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of award till realisation. A correction was made in the award as per Ext.P9 dated 24.03.2008. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner moved the District Court, Thrissur, by filing Arb.(O.P) No. 188/2007, praying for the appointment of a receiver to manage the bar hotel. The said application was allowed by Ext. P10 order dated 25.03.2008, by appointing the petitioner and the 1st respondent as joint receivers for running the business of the partnership firm called "Blissotel", till the valid dissolution of the firm or till the arbitration award is enforced under S.36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whichever is earlier.

(3.) CHALLENGING Ext. P10 order, the 1st respondent has filed Arb. Appeal No. 12/2008 before this Court. Though, the appeal was admitted, no interim order was passed by this Court in the said appeal. Challenging the award of the arbitrators, Arb. O.P. No. 32/2008 was filed by the 1st respondent before the District Court, Thrissur. In the said Arb. O.P., the District Court has passed an interim order, staying the realisation of the amount awarded to the petitioner in the arbitration award. The petitioner submits, she has no remedy for enforcement of Ext. P10 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. So, she submits, she is entitled to get the assistance of the police to enforce that order.