RAMLA ASHRAF Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal instituted under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the appellant is challenging orders passed by the District Court, Thrissur in I.A.No.4606/2017 in CMA (Arbitration)No.9/2017, dated 21.12.2017 and the order in CMA(Arbitration)No.9/2017, dated 30.1.2018.

(2.) The respondent herein had approached the District Court in a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, seeking for appointment of a commission to seize the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL46-K 5125, in execution of an order of attachment by the Arbitrator. It is stated that, the Arbitrator had issued an order on 4.11.2017 directing interim attachment of the vehicle. The District Court, through its order dated 21.12.2017, had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take into possession of the vehicle and to handover the same to the petitioner therein, on obtaining proper receipt, for keeping the same in safe custody of the petitioner. It is conceded that the Advocate Commissioner had already taken possession of the vehicle and it was handed over custody to the respondent herein, pursuant to the above said interim order passed by the District Court on 21.12.2017. Subsequently, the District Court had dismissed the CMA(Arbitration) itself, through an order passed on 30.1.2017, by observing that, the interim order stands already executed.

(3.) The appellant is challenging the above said orders mainly on the premise that, he was not issued with any notice in the said proceedings and also contending that the direction issued by the District Court is outside the purview of jurisdiction vested under Section 9 of the Act. The appellant had also disputed the liability to the extent as claimed by the respondent.