IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Arb.A.No. 30 of 2009(F) ---------------------- OP.937/2009 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP. -------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT VEHICLE & ASSET FINANCE LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, KURIAN TOWERS,BANERJI ROAD, COCHIN, REP BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. BABY SUJATHA, AGED 30 YEARS,D/O.VALSAN SAI SOORAJ,THAMARASSERY ROAD,THRIPOONITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS. ----------------------- 1. MUHAMMAD SUHAIB,S/O.USMAN, MADARI HOUSE, THAMARASSERY PO, CALICUT DISTRICT 2. HAMSA V.P S/O.KOYA KUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYAKAL HOUSE, CHAMAL PO, KANNOTIPARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, ALONG WITH ARB.APPEAL NO.34 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- Arb.Appeal Nos.30, 34, 37, 38, 40 & 42 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. These appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the District Court, Ernakulam ordering to return various applications filed by the appellant all under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for presentation before proper court, under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the District Court the appellant sought attachment of immovable properties belonging to the respondents for securing amounts advanced to the respondents by way of loans. The District Court found that the properties sought to be attached are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of that court and therefore the petitions need be filed before those civil courts having territorial jurisdiction where the properties situate. 2. The issue now stands covered by a decision of this court in Muthoot Vehicle & Asset Finance Ltd. v. Arb.A.30, 34, 37, 38, 40 & 42 of 2009 2 Gopalan Kuttappan [2009 (4) KLT 123]. The very same appellant filed appeal against an identical order and this court found that, with respect to petitions filed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the court which is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain such petitions can issue appropriate orders under Section 9, despite the fact whether the property is situated within its territorial jurisdiction or not. In that case this court found that the loan agreement was executed at Ernakulam and the registered Office of the appellant is situated at Ernakulam. Therefore, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of District Court, Ernakulam, as per Section 20C of Code of Civil Procedure. Further it is observed that by virtue of agreement between the parties, the venue of arbitration proceedings is fixed as at Ernakulam and the office of the sole arbitrator nominated by the parties also situates at Ernakulam, within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Ernakulam. 3. Since the issue stands covered by the decision cited supra, we are of the opinion that the District Court, Ernakulam has got jurisdiction to entertain the petitions filed Arb.A.30, 34, 37, 38, 40 & 42 of 2009 3 by the appellant in all these cases. 4. Accordingly the above appeals are allowed and the orders in Arbitration O.P.Nos:30, 34, 37, 38, 40 & 42 of 2009 on the files of the District Court, Ernakulam are hereby set aside. The District Court, Ernakulam is directed to proceed with the Arbitration O.Ps in accordance with law. That court may deal with and dispose of the matter as early as possible. The parties are directed to suffer their costs in these appeals. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb