IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18684 of 2008(Y)
1. P.VALSALA,D/O.RAMADAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. T.S.SAVIN,15/444(2) BY PASS ROAD,
3. SANKARANARAYANAN,S/O.BHASKARAN,
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
5. BIJEESH,THETTEPURATH,BEACH ROAD,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.18684 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a guarantor for a loan sanctioned by the 1st
respondent to the original 2nd respondent (deleted later on in
view of the difficulty in serving notice on him) for purchase of a
‘Toyota Innova’ Vehicle. Since the 2nd respondent did not pay the
instalments of repayment of the loan, the 1st respondent invoked
the Arbitration Clause in the loan agreement by filing O.P.(Arb)
No.354/2008 before the 3rd Additional District Court, Ernakulam,
in which the property of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent
were attached. In the meanwhile, as agreed by the 1st
respondent, the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, who directed the 4th
respondent to seize the vehicle in question. That vehicle was
transferred by the original 2nd respondent to the 5th respondent.
Accordingly, the vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent on
19.6.2008 from the 5th respondent. But the 4th respondent is not
in a position to produce the vehicle before any criminal court as
W.P.(c)No.18684/08 2
no crime has been registered in this regard. The petitioner has
already preferred a petition before the 3rd Additional District
Court seeking direction to the 4th respondent not to release the
vehicle to the 5th respondent during the pendency of the
arbitration case. The petitioner has filed this writ petition
apprehending handing over the vehicle to the 5th respondent
before the District Court can consider the petition. The
petitioner seeks the following relief in this writ petition:
“a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writs, orders or directions directing the 4th respondent
not to release the Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KL9 -U 4574 to the 5th respondent or any other
person till orders are passed by the 3rd Additional
District Court, Ernakulam in O.P.Arbitration
No.354/2008”.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the
learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the
learned Government Pleader. I am satisfied that before the
District Court can pass orders on the petition stated to have
been filed by the petitioner, the vehicle shall not be handed
over to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent.
W.P.(c)No.18684/08 3
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the 3rd Additional District Court, Ernakulam to
consider the application stated to have been filed by the
petitioner seeking direction to the 4th respondent not to release
the vehicle to the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible.
Till orders are so passed, the 4th respondent shall not release
the vehicle to the 5th respondent.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.18684/08 4