IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8657 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OPARB.634/2009 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEDHAR K.KOTTARAM, S/O.K.P.KUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING IN KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.SIRAJUDHEEN, S/O.LATE KASSIM, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALAYIL TAJ MANSION, KUNNANPALLI BHAGAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DIST. ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R1 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN FOR R1 SMT.USHA NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 8657/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION DT 14-8-09 P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 4-9-09 P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DT 3-10-09 P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 9-12-09 P5 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 21-2-2010 P6 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 27-2-10 P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27-2-10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.8657 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 order . Objection is taken to that portion of the order, which reads as follows: "Therefore it is accepted as sufficient security and there will be a lien on the deposit receipt by this court. The security shall continue to operate from today for a period of three months." 2. The specific objection taken is that the court below lifted the attachment on furnishing the security for a period of three months. There is also a direction that arbitration proceedings shall be commenced within a reasonable time. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that once an order is passed, the petitioner has to take steps for arbitration proceedings and if the petitioner does not take any steps for arbitration proceedings, he will have no remedy. W.P (C) No.8657 of 2010 2 Section 9 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows: " A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any \ time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court:- (i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or (ii) for an interim measure of protection in in respect of any of the following matters, namely: (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject matter of the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration. (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence; (d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; (e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient; and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it." 4. Under Sec.9 of the Act, the Courts are to make interim arrangements. Orders are passed in anticipation of W.P (C) No.8657 of 2010 3 arbitration proceedings or arbitration proceedings or after arbitration proceedings culminate in an award. The order passed before arbitration is only for a short duration. The arbitration proceedings will have commenced within a reasonable period. The petitioner shall take necessary steps for commencing the arbitration proceedings within four months from today failing which respondent can approach court for getting the order modified. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.8657 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.8657 of 2010 5