IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. NO. 294 of 2007 Between: MRS. T. Latha ..... APPELLANT AND Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Branch office at 6-3-1109/1/P-202, Jewel Pavani Tower, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. NO. 294 OF 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2007 in O.P. No. 1000 of 2006 on the file of the learned III Addl. Chief Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Sec.9(ii)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996 was allowed directing that the first respodnent herein to continue the custody of the vehicles and deal with the vehicles as per the directions of the Arbitrator. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respodnents. The first respondent herein has filed an application under Sec. 9(ii)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996. According to them, the respondnets 2 and 3 herein are the borrowers and the appellant herein has stood as guarantor by hypothecating the said vehicles in favour of the first respondent bank. The factum of said hypothecation is also borne out by the endorsement contained in the R.C. Book by way of collateral security. The learned counsel for the appellant submits taht there was no hypothecation as such by the appellant herein in favour of the first respondent bank in lieu of the loan that was sanctioned to and availed by the respondents 2 and 3 and the hypothecation was in connection with the some other personal loan transaction of the apepllant herein. By the impugned order, only interim custody of the vehicles was granted in favour of the first respondent bank with an observtion that the dispute raised by the appellant is a matter to be determined during the course of arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator commenced the proceedings in the year 2006. In view of the prima facie case and the material available on record, particularly the endorsement on the R.C. Book to the effect that the vehicles were hypothecated by the appellant in favour of the first respondent bank by way of collateral security for the loan availed by the respodnents 2 and 3 herein, it is just and proper to allow the first respondent bank to continue the interim custody of the vehicles and the same cannot be given to the appellant. In the circumstances, it is just and proper to direct the learned Arbitrator to complete the arbitration proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo shall be maintained in respect of the interim custody of the vehicles. With the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy August 06, 2009 MAS.