IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18684 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- P.VALSALA,D/O.RAMADAS, AGED 45 YEARS,ADVOCATE, "JHANVI" WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD-1. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS,2ND FLOOR, KURIAN TOWERS,BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 018. 2. T.S.SAVIN,15/444(2) BY PASS ROAD,(DELETED) KUNNATHURMEDU P.O.,PALAKKAD. (DELETED AS PER ORDER DT.25.7.08 IN I.A.9531/08.) 3. SANKARANARAYANAN,S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS,THOZHUTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAYAM P.O.,SHORANUR,PALAKKAD-679 125. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKOM. 5. BIJEESH,THETTEPURATH,BEACH ROAD, PERINJANAM P.O.,KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18684 of 2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF I.A.NO.1602/2008 SEEKING INJUNCTION OF THE PROPERTIES FILED ALONG WITH O.P.(ARB) NO.354/2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.1602/2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.18684 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a guarantor for a loan sanctioned by the 1st respondent to the original 2nd respondent (deleted later on in view of the difficulty in serving notice on him) for purchase of a 'Toyota Innova' Vehicle. Since the 2nd respondent did not pay the instalments of repayment of the loan, the 1st respondent invoked the Arbitration Clause in the loan agreement by filing O.P.(Arb) No.354/2008 before the 3rd Additional District Court, Ernakulam, in which the property of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were attached. In the meanwhile, as agreed by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, who directed the 4th respondent to seize the vehicle in question. That vehicle was transferred by the original 2nd respondent to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent on 19.6.2008 from the 5th respondent. But the 4th respondent is not in a position to produce the vehicle before any criminal court as W.P.(c)No.18684/08 2 no crime has been registered in this regard. The petitioner has already preferred a petition before the 3rd Additional District Court seeking direction to the 4th respondent not to release the vehicle to the 5th respondent during the pendency of the arbitration case. The petitioner has filed this writ petition apprehending handing over the vehicle to the 5th respondent before the District Court can consider the petition. The petitioner seeks the following relief in this writ petition: “a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the 4 th respondent not to release the Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL9 -U 4574 to the 5 th respondent or any other person till orders are passed by the 3 rd Additional District Court, Ernakulam in O.P.Arbitration No.354/2008”. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. I am satisfied that before the District Court can pass orders on the petition stated to have been filed by the petitioner, the vehicle shall not be handed over to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent. W.P.(c)No.18684/08 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd Additional District Court, Ernakulam to consider the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 4th respondent not to release the vehicle to the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are so passed, the 4th respondent shall not release the vehicle to the 5th respondent. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.18684/08 4