AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B M Shyam Prasad, J
The petitioners have called in question interim order dated 11.08.2025 by an Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitration Dispute No.2025-5363-5747-8739. The proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal are at Chennai. Ms. Kavitha D, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents have commenced the arbitration proceedings because of the default committed by the first petitioner's husband [Mr. Manjunath Gowda N]. On the merits of the petitioners' grievance with the impugned interim order, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 for the Constitution of India on the ground of jurisdiction.
Ms. Kavitha D, to support the petitioners' grievance with the impugned order, submits that [a] the loan outstanding is only in a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, which is now increased to Rs.13,00,000/-, [b] after the impugned interim order, the respondents have sealed the premises [a residential property], but movables continue to be within the premises, and [c] the first petitioner, despite matrimonial dispute with her husband, is willing to clear the loan as that would serve not only her interest but also the interest of her daughter [the second petitioner]. The learned counsel ultimately submits that this Court may dispose of this petition, extending appropriate protection to the petitioners against removal of movable property from the premises with liberty to the petitioners to avail remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, 'the arbitration act'].
The circumstances of the case as put forward are considered in the light of the reasons assigned in the impugned order and the indisputable position that the petitioners have their statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This Court is of the view that the petitioners' grievance must be considered in the statutory appeal, if availed by the petitioners, and insofar as the interim order, it would suffice for this Court to observe that the same must also be considered in the appeal that the petitioners may file.
As such, the petition stands disposed of with all just liberties to the petitioners.