HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. MANAF ARAKKAVEETTIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the arbitration proceedings, an interim order was passed by the artbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) . The operative part of the order reads thus:

(2.) The petitioner approached the District Court, Thrissur in a petition under Section 17(2) of the Act praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to attach and take possession of the vehicle. It was numbered as C.M.A(Arbitration) No.18 of 2018. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application as I.A. No.372 of 2018 with the same prayer. The learned Judge directed issuance of notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the order for issuance of notice, the petitioner filed I.A No.504 of 2018 in the C.M.A to recall the issuance of notice ordered on I.A No.372 of 2018. The grievance projected by the petitioner was that, if notice is issued to the respondent on the application for taking over possession of the vehicle, then definitely it will be giving an opportunity to the respondent to remove the vehicle. However, the court below as per order dated 7.3.2018 dismissed the application. The said orders are under challenge.

(3.) There is force in the contention that issuance of notice by the court below prior to the taking over of possession of the vehicle, will be affording opportunity to the respondent to remove the vehicle from the jurisdiction of the court or to deal with it otherwise. This Court while considering the powers under Section 9 of the Act regarding grant of interim orders, in Muthukoya Thoopiyakal v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Others, (2011) 4 Kerala Law Times 941 observed thus: