IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Arb.A.No. 8 of 2009() --------------------- OPARB.186/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------- SHAJAHAN S/O. THAMPI ROWTHER, AGED 27 YEARS, PALLATHERI, ELAPPULLY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT, REP.BY DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY, ABDUL SALEEM S/O. MUTHUKUTTY, MUZHIKUNNAM HOUSE, NOCHIPPULLY P.O., CHOUTHIPARAMBU, MUNDUR. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MAHINDRA TOWERS, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018, MAHARASHTRA STATE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGER (AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY), M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., 2ND FLOOR, T.M.COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Arbitration Appeal.No.8 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner purchased a vehicle availing a loan from the 1st respondent. There was some default in the loan account. Regarding the quantum of default, there is dispute between the parties. According to the appellant, the vehicle was seized from him by the respondents on 15.1.2004 using police. Though he filed O.S.No.112/2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad for mandatory injunction and other reliefs, the learned Munsiff referred the matter for arbitration. While so, pending arbitration, the appellant filed O.P.(Arbitration) No.186/2005 before the District Court, Palakkad, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for giving interim custody of the vehicle to him. The respondents appeared and submitted that the vehicle was in fact surrendered by the petitioner. They had sold the vehicle and now a third party is using it. Taking note of the said ARBA.No.8/2009 2 development, the District Court held that now the appellant cannot be given interim custody of the vehicle and dismissed the Original Petition (Arbitration). Aggrieved by that order, this appeal is filed. 2. The appellant does not dispute that the vehicle has been sold by the respondent to a third party. In view of the said position, it was not possible for the District Court to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the finding of the District Court. Even assuming that everything stated by the appellant is taken as correct, still no relief could be granted to him under Section 9 of the Act, in view of the subsequent developments. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps