IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 Arb.A.No. 55 of 2010(D) --------------------------------- [A.OP.NO.142/2010 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR] .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 55, OLAMATTAMKARIYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. HIGHWAY RESORT(PUTHUKKAD),THRISSUR DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOSEPH JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES, SRI.M.POLY MATHAI, SRI.HARI MENON, SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.MATHEW,S/O.LATE K.M.THOMAS,AGED 55, KATTIVEETTIL HOUSE,IRITTY P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. NISHAD MATHEW, AGED 31,S/O.K.T.MATHEW, KATTIVEETTIL HOUSE,IRITTY P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. NIDHIMON MATHEW,AGED 28,S/O.K.T.MATHEW, KATTIVEETTIL HOUSE,IRITTY P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN(CAVEATOR). THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** Arb.Appeal No.55 of 2010-D ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against a part of the impugned order passed by the District Court, Thrissur, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. We extract the operative portion of the impugned order below: “In the result, the petition is allowed, and the 1st respondent is restrained by a prohibitory injunction from leasing out the petition schedule property to others and from interfering with the petitioner's right as a partner to carry on the business of the firm in the petition schedule property till the dispute is adjudicated by the Arbitrator. I direct the parties to suffer their cost.” 2. We have heard both counsel in detail. We find no reason to disagree with the lower court on its finding that prima facie Ext.B1 cannot be accepted at the moment. Be that as it Arb.Appeal No.55 of 2010-D 2 may, the impugned order, the operative portion of which is extracted above, contains two specific directions. They are: i) The 1st respondent was restrained from leasing out the petition schedule property to others; ii) He was further restrained from interfering with the 1st appellant's right as a partner to carry on the business and the firm in the plaint schedule property till the dispute is adjudicated by the arbitrator; 3. Objection is not taken to the former direction, ie. direction No.(i). But the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the direction that the petitioner (1st respondent herein) can exercise his right as a partner to carry on the business of the firm in the plaint schedule property till the arbitration is over is likely to create problems in the actual day- to-day working of the partnership. We found merit in that objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. In response to our queries, the learned counsel for the appellants agreed that the 1st appellant is willing to function as the receiver appointed by the court under the supervision of the court. We put the suggestion to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent took time. It is Arb.Appeal No.55 of 2010-D 3 submitted today that subject to appropriate and strict conditions, such an arrangement can be made. 4. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The order - restraining the 1st appellant from interfering with the 1st respondent's right as a partner to carry on the business of the firm in the plaint schedule property till the dispute is adjudicated by the arbitrator, is set aside; c) The 1st appellant is appointed as the receiver. The 1st appellant shall function under the supervision and control of the court below. He shall abide by directions to be issued by the District Judge from time to time. The District Judge may impose appropriate and necessary conditions on the appellants. Bimonthly reports shall be submitted to the District Judge by the 1st appellant/receiver; d) The 1st respondent herein shall be permitted to have access to all the registers and records of the firm on dates to be prescribed by the court below; e) Parties shall be at liberty to seek appropriate further directions from the court below from time to time; Arb.Appeal No.55 of 2010-D 4 f) The court below shall supervise and monitor the functioning of the receiver as if that court has appointed the receiver. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/