IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37699 of 2007(K) PETITIONER: 1. PHILOMINA M.MATHEW, NALLANIRAPPEL HOUSE, KALKUNDU POST, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. THOMAS MATHEW, NALLANIRAPPEL HOUSE, KALKUNDU POST, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN RESPONDENTS: 1. BRANCH MANAGER, SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., IST FLOOR, KOOTHRAT TOWERS, COURT ROAD, MANJERI. 2. JOYCHAN MATHEW, MALIACKAL HOUSE, KANNATH, P.P.KARUVARAKUNDU. 3. SOLE ARBITRATOR OF SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., KAMALA BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., 03204 SAPHALLYAM, TRIDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DIST. 6. M/S.M.K.AUTOMOBILES, MALAPPURAM ROAD, MUTTIPPALAM, MANJERI. 7. SREE SASTHA BUS BODY BUILDERS, AJKHA BUILDING, ORADAMBALAM, TIRURKAD, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 37699 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed by the petitioners who are brother and sister, the main prayer is to direct the Officer superior to the 5th respondent namely Sub Inspector of Police, Karuvarakundu Police Station to investigate the entire loan transaction of the 1st petitioner with the 1st respondent, Shriram Investments Ltd., and respondents 2,4,6 and 7. The second prayer is to declare that the arbitration proceedings commenced as per Ext.P12 is illegal for the reason that the 3rd respondent, the sole arbitrator is none other than the counsel of the 1st respondent and he is not conducting the proceedings in an impartial manner. 2. With regard to the first prayer, admittedly Ext.P7 complaint does not allege commission of any cognizable offence without which the police have no authority to register a crime and conduct investigation. Hence, it is for the petitioner to file a proper complaint falling under Section 154(i) of the Cr.P.C so that the police can register a crime and conduct investigation. W.P.(C) NO. 37699/2007 : 2 : 3. With regard to the second prayer there are no materials produced before this Court to show that the petitioner had raised written objections before the 3rd respondent regarding his jurisdiction to conduct arbitration proceedings. Without raising the jurisdictional question before the Arbitrator himself, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court for a declaration as prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appropriate complaint before the Karuvarakundu Police and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise appropriate objection in writing before the 3rd respondent, Arbitrator. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) NO. 37699/2007 : 3 :