IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 87 of 2011(O) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2010 IN EP 121/2010 IN ARB.132/2007 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- MADHU VASUDEVAN PILLAI ,MAYALAYAM POLACHIRA PO, NEDUMGOLAM CHERRY, PARAVOOR VILLAGE KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD. REPRESENTED BY SUBHASH, KESAVAPURATH HOUSE T.C.NO.32/1926, MARAHANKUZHY, KANJIRAMPARA PO TRIVANDRUM. 2. C.V.RAJALAKSHMI, ARBITRATOR, 35/279 SUB URBAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, OPPOSITE YATRI NIVAS, MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-31 ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR FOR R1 SRI.S.NIDHEESH FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.87 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 31 st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The first respondent filed E.P.No.121 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kollam in execution of the Award passed by the arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner raised an objection inter alia contending that he did not receive a copy of the Award. In that objection, the petitioner also stated that all further proceedings in the Execution Petition are liable to be stayed. It is stated that the Executing Court did not pass any order on the objection raised by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Executing Court is proceeding with the Execution Proceedings. 2. The relief prayed for in the Original Petition is to call for the records from the Executing Court and O.P(C).No.87 OF 2011 2 to stay all further proceedings therein till the petitioner receives a copy of the Arbitral Award in Arbitration Reference No.132 of 2007 and for a further period of three months thereafter to enable the petitioner to file application before the court to set aside the Award. The second respondent in the Original Petition is the arbitrator and a direction is also sought for to the second respondent to issue a copy of the Arbitral Award to the petitioner. 3. Since the petitioner has raised objections, it is for the executing Court to consider the same in accordance with law. It is not necessary to issue any direction in the Original Petition to stay the Execution Proceedings. It is doubtful whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be filed to direct the Arbitrator to issue a copy of the Award to the petitioner. With the above observations, the Original petition is disposed of . K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms