IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 Arb.A.No. 8 of 2011() ------------------------------ OP (ARBITRATION).447/2010 OF DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------ 1. SADASIVAN SANJITH, S/O.SADASIVAN, HINDU, AGED 53, T.C. 2/1947(17), G.R.A., 51, SUKRUTHAM, GOWREESA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DHARMAJA SANJITH, W/O.SADASIVAN SANJITH, AGED 45, T.C. 2/1947(17), G.R.A., 51, SUKRUTHAM, GOWREESA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.K.L.VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE, SRI.RAHUL VARGHESE, SRI.RANJITH VARGHESE. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS (PVT) LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC. 13/57-1, ANJANEYA APARTMENTS, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.M.G. SIVASANKARA KURUP, HINDU, MALE, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC. 4/2554(5), KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against an interim order passed by the District Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 2. In the nature of the submissions made before us at the final stage, we do not think it necessary to advert to the facts in greater detail. Suffice it to say that it is conceded that there is an arbitration agreement. It is conceded that arbitration has not commenced so far. The respondent herein sought interim directions from the District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. By the impugned order, the court below restrained the appellant herein by an order of injunction “from alienating the petition schedule property to any third party or encumber the property creating any charge over the property for a period of one year form the date of the order or till the arbitration proceedings are initiated Arb.Appeal NO.8/2011 2 and completed whichever is earlier.” 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance of the appellant? According to the appellant, the period of one year prescribed is too long. This would mean that the respondent will be in no hurry to take necessary steps for initiation of arbitral proceedings. The court while alertly perceiving the need to limit the period of operation of the interim order did not continue to show that interest while fixing the period of time. A period of one year is not required at all; the period may be appropriately reduced, submits counsel. 4. It is further prayed that it may be made clear that the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the court below to modify this order and/or seek appropriate further directions from the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There is no dispute that such course is open to the appellant. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to make any specific observations in this regard. If and when the appellant Arb.Appeal NO.8/2011 3 chooses to make such a request, the court concerned/arbitrator shall have to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders under Section 9/Section 17 of the Act. 5. What remains is only the objection regarding the period of time raised as the first ground above. Even that objection has paled into in significance as the learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that it has been agreed by the parties to appoint the arbitrators. Necessary steps are being taken in this regard. It is submitted that the appellants herein have proposed the name of Justice J.M.James, a former Judge of this Court as the Arbitrator nominated by them. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent shall specify the name of the arbitrator nominated by the respondent immediately. The impugned order was passed on 1.12.2010. We are satisfied that there must be a sense of urgency to commence the arbitral proceedings. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the period specified in the impugned order can be modified to five months. We Arb.Appeal NO.8/2011 4 make it clear that if the arbitrators are appointed within the said period of five months, the order shall continue to remain in force till the arbitral proceedings are completed. 6. This appeal is in these circumstances allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/