IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1010 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31160/2009 Dated 25/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, POTTAPPURATHU HOUSE, (CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU) KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.A.JOSE,S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS PURANCHIRA HOUSE, THRUVAMPADI, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, PARIPPALLY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ,KOCHI. 4. SRI EQUIPMENTS FINANCE PVT LIMITED PALARIVATTOM, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R2 AND R3 BY G.P. SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI. JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ADV. P.B. KRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 1010 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant has availed a loan from the fourth respondent and purchased two vehicles. Even before clearing the arrears, the appellant sold one of the vehicles to the first respondent. Fourth respondent got arbitrator appointed for getting award for the amount to be realised from the appellant and the Calcutta High Court has appointed arbitrator. In between fourth respondent repossessed the vehicle sold by the appellant to the first respondent. In the course of proceedings before this Court, under interim orders the other vehicle for which also appellant has obtained finance from the fourth respondent is repossessed by the fourth respondent. Appellant's case is that it is only through interim orders which is made part of final judgment, fourth respondent got possession of one vehicle. According to the appellant arbitration proceedings is only in respect of the loan availed for the vehicle sold to the first respondent. Senior counsel Sri. Jayakumar, WA 1010/2010 2 appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that there is default for the second vehicle also. We do not find any justification to order release of vehicles repossessed by the fourth respondent because being a financier they are entitled to repossess the vehicles on which there is hypothecation for the loan availed by the appellant. Arbitration proceedings are said to be initiated in Calcutta. However, vehicle owners and vehicles are in Kerala. We feel the custody of the vehicles for long period with the fourth respondent does not serve the interest of fourth respondent as well. Counsel for the appellant suggested settlement through mediation in which we feel fourth respondent and first respondent should co-operate so that if the matter is settled on terms acceptable to all parties, arbitration proceedings need not be pursued. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of leaving freedom to the appellant, first respondent and fourth respondent to settle the matter through mediation. The Mediation Centre will take up the matter for mediation on application by the appellant along with a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that there is no need for the fourth WA 1010/2010 3 respondent to release the vehicles unless there is settlement between the parties or until arbitration proceedings are over and recovery is made. Since we have protected the interests of fourth respondent by allowing them to keep possession of the vehicles, and since arbitration proceedings are going on, we delete the observations made by the learned single Judge in the interim orders and final judgment. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk WA 1010/2010 4