To sum up the discussions as above, it has to be declared
that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order to enforce its order by
directing the Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the
vehicle from the opposite party. It is made clear that the Advocate
Commissioner or Receiver as the case may be, can be appointed for
any other purpose, but not to enforce an order of repossession
passed by the Tribunal. Any order of repossession can only be
enforced through a civil court.
The repossession of the vehicles by enforcing the order of
the Arbitral Tribunal without the intervention of the civil court,
therefore, has to be treated as violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
WP(C).No. 38725 of 2015 (M)
PRADEEP K.N.
Vs
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C).Nos.
38725/2015 7932/2016
Print Page
that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order to enforce its order by
directing the Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the
vehicle from the opposite party. It is made clear that the Advocate
Commissioner or Receiver as the case may be, can be appointed for
any other purpose, but not to enforce an order of repossession
passed by the Tribunal. Any order of repossession can only be
enforced through a civil court.
The repossession of the vehicles by enforcing the order of
the Arbitral Tribunal without the intervention of the civil court,
therefore, has to be treated as violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
WP(C).No. 38725 of 2015 (M)
PRADEEP K.N.
Vs
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C).Nos.
38725/2015 7932/2016
