IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Arb.A.No. 26 of 2008() ------------------------------ OP.(ARBITRATION) NO.166/06 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ........ APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------- REGHUNATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 58, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, VATTAVILA, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. M/S.FLEXO BRICKS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AT RAMANILAYAM, T.C. 14/2221, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.1/1256, SREENIVAS, SBI COLONY, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYAKUMARI, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.1/1256 SREENIVAS, SBI COLONY, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MANMADHAN, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, KAZHAKUTTAM, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- ARB.A.NO.26 OF 2008 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant/Petitioner was a partner of the 1st respondent firm called “Flexo Bricks”, started by respondents 2 and 3. It is the case of the appellant that he has already initiated arbitration proceedings. Cases were pending before the Civil Court also. Appellant wants to dissolve the firm for settlement of the accounts. But appellant was not able to get any injunction order from the Civil Court. Thereafter, he approached the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as an interim measure as according to him, otherwise more liability will be created in the name of the 1st respondent firm. The appellant prayed for an injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from alienating the plaint schedule property and for appointing a receiver for taking custody of the business and also restraining respondents 2 and 3 from creating any further ARBA.26/08 2 liability for the business. The property admittedly belongs to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Taking all these circumstances, the arbitrator granted relief of injunction restraining the defendants from using the firm name “Flexo Bricks” and also restraining respondents 2 and 3 from creating any further liability for the business in the name of the 1st respondent firm. We are of the opinion that necessary reliefs are already granted by the District Judge. There is no basis for appointing a receiver pending arbitration at this stage. Arbitrator is not get appointment in this case. Considering the fact that appellant's interest is protected, we are of the opinion that no interference is required at this stage, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd September, 2008