KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Vs. JOSEPH MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a scheduled bank. Respondents had availed a loan from the petitioner/bank. Since default was committed, petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings at Chennai claiming that, it was the seat of arbitration. Ext.P1 interim order was passed under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act attaching the movable properties of the respondent and appointing an officer of the petitioner as the receiver. Petitioner filed C.M.A(Arb).No.649 of 2019 before the District Court, Ernakulam to execute Ext.P1 order. I.A.No.4078 of 2019 was also filed for appointing an advocate commissioner for taking possession of the movables of the respondents. The reason stated was that, respondents were residing at Ernakulam and movable properties were within the jurisdiction of District Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) Learned VIIth Additional District Judge before whom the matter came up, held that the interim order under section 17(2) can be executed by that Court only if the order is transferred for execution under section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Arbitration OP was returned with a direction to present before the proper court. This order is assailed in this original petition.

(3.) Challenging the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below, by the impugned order, committed a jurisdictional error by holding that the order can be implemented only if the order is transmitted under section 39 of the CPC.