IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30660 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- E.P.NO....../2008OF DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHAMMA, D/O.MADHAVAN, W/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, MYLADUMPARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.N.R.CITY, RAJAKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, MOONGAMAKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUNCHITHANNY. 2. MANOJ, S/O.MADHAVAN, MOONGAMAKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUNCHITHANNY. 3. JANAKI, W/O.MADHAVAN, MOONGAMAKAL HOUSE, P.O.KUNCHITHANNY. 4. THE SECRETARY, S.N.D.P, KUNCHITHANNY. 5. SARASAMMA, D/O.MADHAVAN, W/O.THANKAPPAN, CHERUVIL HOUSE, SOUTH SENGULAM, P.O.CHITHIRAPURAM. 6. OMANA, D/O.MADHAVAN, W/O.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAKATTIL HOUSE, MINOR CITY, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE. 7. MAYA, (D/O.MADHAVAN), W/O.SANTHOSH, ARAPPANAL HOUSE, KARIMALA P.O., KUTHUMGAL, P.O.KUNCHITHANNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30660 of 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that herself and respondents settled their disputes in the mediation of S.N.D.P. Yogam, as seen from Ext.P1 which was followed by a consent deed executed between the parties as evidenced by Ext.P2. Petitioner, claiming that Exts.P1 and P2 amounted to an arbitral award, approached the District Court, Thodupuzha for its execution. Ext.P3 is a photocopy of the execution petition. Petitioner states that Ext.P3, petition was not entertained and instead, it was returned stating that Exts.P1 and P2 did not amount to an arbitral award. Counsel contends that under Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is within the power of the Arbitrator to encourage settlement between the parties. It is also contended that though there is no arbitration agreement in writing as such in this case, there is no particular form of arbitration agreement prescribed and therefore, the arbitration agreement can be by any mode of conveyance in writing. According to the petitioner, she was not heard by learned District Judge before the impugned order was passed. It is also contended that no speaking order has been passed. 3. I am not entering into the correctness or merit of the contention WP(C) No.30660/2008 2 raised by learned counsel for petitioner. It is seen that learned District Judge merely observed that Exts.P1 and P2 do not amount to an arbitral award. Reasons for holding so are not stated. To that extent, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines:- (1) The order on Ext.P3 petition is set aside. (2) Learned District Judge will hear the petitioner, if necessary with notice to the respondents also and pass appropriate orders after considering the contentions raised in the matter. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks