IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Arb.A.No. 4 of 2008(A) ---------------------- OP(ARB.).139/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER NO.2 ------------------------------------------ S.VIJAYALEKSHMI, SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-2. BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT & PETITIONER NO.1 ----------------------------------------- 1. S.MOHAN, 9 CRUSADER GARDENS, CROYDON, CRO 5 UJ UNITED KINGDOM, SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM KOLLAM-2 REP. BY ITS P/A HOLDER, K.SAHADEVAN, AGED 54, S/O NEELAKANDAN, RESIDING AT KOTHUMBIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM-15. 2. SUNDARESWARAN.N., SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM(2)-(DIED). ADDL. 3. SMT.MANJU, D/O.SUNDARESWARAN, SUNDARA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM P.O. KOLLAM 691 002 Arb.A.No. 4 of 2008(A :: 2 :: (ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS L.R OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DTD. 1.2.08 IN I.A.256/2008. THE APPELLANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT ARE ALSO RECORDED AS L.RS OF DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER THE ABOVE ORDER) ADDL. 4. P.K.JAGADEV, AGED 40, G/S SUNDARESWARAN, PATTANIAYYAM, KILIKOLLOORE POST, MUSALIAR NAGAR – 90, KOLLAM. (ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 5/2/08 ON I.A.330/08) BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU(CAVEATOR) SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS ARBITRATION APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- Arb.A.No.4 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 7th April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant in this case approached the District Court, Kollam for setting aside the arbitration award passed regarding the dissolution of firm called `M/s.N.Sundareswaran'. Arbitration award was passed mainly accepting the claim of the first respondent. On the basis of the contentions raised by the appellant, the award was set aside as mandatory provisions in the Act regarding the procedure to be adopted by the Arbitrator were not complied with by the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, the petition to set aside the award as prayed for by the appellant was allowed by the District Judge and the matter was remanded to the Arbitration Tribunal for determining all issues involved in the proceedings afresh. The learned District Judge found that the entire procedure of the Arbitrator was wrong. The award was set aside mainly for procedural violation and also under section 34(2)(a)(iii) and (v) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order allowing her own application to set aside the award. Even though we tried for settlement, it was not successful. We see no ground to interfere with the order of the District Arb.A.4/2008 2 Judge at the instance of the appellant as District Judge has allowed the petition filed by the appellant. We agree with the observations of the learned District Judge that pendency of arbitration proceedings is not a ground for the bank to take appropriate action. If the bank is liable to get any dues on the assets of the firm or partners or secured property, it can legally proceed against it and pending of arbitration proceedings is not a ground to stall these proceedings. In the absence of agreement between the parties, we see no ground to change the arbitrator as arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Justice and personal bias against the arbitrator was not proved or no prayer was made before the court below for change of arbitrator. It is for the parties to take appropriate proceedings. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks