Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kiran Rao Rai vs Sundaram Finance Limited on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
1 MP-7477-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 7477 of 2025
KIRAN RAO RAI
Versus
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 287 of 2026
KIRAN RAO RAI
Versus
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED
MISC. PETITION No. 290 of 2026
KIRAN RAO RAI
Versus
SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED
Appearance:
Shri Akash Kaushal- Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Atul Choudhary-Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Since all the three petitions are challenging the same order of the
Executing Court passed between the same parties, but in relation to different
arbitral awards, therefore they are being decided by this common order. For
the sake of convenience facts shall be taken from MP No. 7477 of 2025.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
2 MP-7477-2025
Executing Court dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Executing
Court has proceeded to enforce the interim measures awarded by the Arbitral
Tribunal situated at Chennai and has proceeded to attach the agricultural land
of the petitioner and also directed the revenue authority to make note of the
attachment in the revenue record.
3. The basic facts leading to the present petition are that the
present petitioner had taken certain loans from the respondent finance
company for finance of trucks. As many as 10 vehicles have been said to be
financed by the respondent company and the petitioner defaulted on payment
of instalments of the said financed vehicle in pursuance to which arbitral
proceedings were initiated by the Finance Company and the Arbitrator
passed the directions in terms of Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996 (Act of 1996, for short) and directed to attach the agricultural land
of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said attachment order and
further making note in the revenue records regarding land having been
attached.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per
Section 2(1)(e) of Act of 1996, the application had to be filed before the
“court”, and the “court” would be the court having jurisdiction of the seat of
arbitration and the seat of arbitration as well as the venue of arbitration in the
present case admittedly is in Chennai (Tamil Nadu) and therefore the
arbitration seat and venue being at Tamil Nadu, having passed an order in
terms of Section 17 of Act of 1996, should have transmitted the said order to
the Executing Court at Chennai. Then the respondents should have filed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
3 MP-7477-2025
execution petition before the concerned court at Chennai and the said court
could have transferred the execution petition to the concerned court at
Chhindwara and only then the Executing Court at Chhindwara could have
taken up the execution proceeding. Therefore it is argued that though the seat
and venue of arbitration is in Tamil Nadu and M.P. High Court would not
have full-fledged jurisdiction in the matter, but the Executing Court at
Chhindwara which is within the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, having
taken up the execution petition without having any jurisdiction to do so,
therefore for this limited purpose the Madhya Pradesh High Court can
supervise the Executing Court at Chhindwara, if it is acting in excess of its
jurisdiction.
5. It is further argued that as per Section 46 CPC, precept is to be
sent by the court to any other court which would be competent to execute
such decree and the court to which the fact is sent shall attach the property
but in the present case no necessary facts are available to invoke Section 46.
Even if Section 46 has to be invoked it has to be invoked at Chennai and the
court competent to execute decree in terms of Section 46 CPC would be the
court at Chennai and not the court at Chhindwara.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
application before the Executing Court was filed under Section 46 and 151
CPC and therefore no other jurisdiction could have been invoked by
the Executing Court, though the arbitrator might have requested the
Executing Court in terms of Section 136, but once Section 136 was not
invoked by the respondent, hence the Executing Court could not have
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
4 MP-7477-2025
invoked Section 136 and therefore the Executing Court assumed the
jurisdiction which was not at all vested in it.
7. The counsel for petitioner further argued that there was no prayer
in the application nor any direction of the Arbitrator was there to make a note
in the revenue record about the attachment having been made but despite that
the Executing Court proceeded to make a note of attachment which also
cannot be permitted by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Finance Company
has vehemently supported the impugned order passed by the Executing Court
by submitting that firstly this court does not have jurisdiction in the matter
because admittedly the seat and venue of arbitration is in Chennai and the
present petition would lie only before the concerned court having jurisdiction
over Chennai. It is further argued that in the present case the Executing Court
was duly having jurisdiction under section 136 CPC and what is to be seen is
substance of the application and not the form of application and if the
substance of the application was under section 136 CPC and even the
direction made by the arbitrator was in terms of Section 136 CPC and
therefore no error can be found in that.
9. Heard.
10. In the present case the agreement has arbitration clause and the
arbitration clause provides for appointment of arbitrator by the institutions
named in the said agreement as well as gives the option to the respondent to
appoint the arbitrator. The arbitrator in the present case has not been
appointed by the other side but has been appointed by the institution named
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
5 MP-7477-2025
in the arbitration clause and therefore prima facie Section 12(5) of the Act of
1996 does not seem to be attracted.
11. The arbitrator has passed the order under Section 17 CPC and
the operative part of the order is as under:
“11) Since the property sought to be attached situates within the jurisdiction of
The District Court, Chhindwara Madhya Pradesh. This Tribunal makes this
order with a request to the District Court, Chhindwara Madhya Pradesh to
effect the order of attachment, as per the provisions of Section 17 pf the Act
read with Section 136 CPC, by appointing & Senior Bailiff of the Hon’ble
Court and to confirm the same with the concerned Registration office.”
12. Thus, it is clear that the arbitrator had had issued the directions
in terms of Section 136 CPC but when this order containing
interim measures was filed before the Executing Court, then before
the Executing Court the application was filed under Sections 46 and 151
CPC. It is settled in law that it is not the form of application which is relevant
but the substance of application which is relevant. The application of was in
fact one under Section 46 and 151 CPC read with Section 17 of Act of 1996.
13. The question of jurisdiction of the Executing Court was
vehemently raised before this court by contending that the execution petition
had to be first filed before the Executing Court at Chennai because it would
be the relevant court in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of Act of 1996. It is not the
case of challenge to the award but it is the case of execution of award. The
provisions which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of controversy
involved in the present case are Sections 38, 39, 46, 136 and 151 CPC.
14. The first ground was that the execution ought to have been filed
before the relevant Execution court at Chennai. As per section 38 of CPC the
decree will be executed either by the court which passed it or by the court to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
6 MP-7477-2025
which it is sent for execution. The transfer of decree is laid down in Section
39 as per which the court which passed the decree can send it for execution
to another court of competent jurisdiction, if the person has no property
within the local limits of jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree
and his property within the limits of jurisdiction of such other court. If the
aforesaid provisions are applied in relation to Act of 1996 then once the
court passing the decree in terms of CPC can directly send it for execution to
another court then obviously, the arbitrator could have requested the court of
another jurisdiction under which the property of the debtor is situated,
without first requiring to get the execution filed in the court at Chennai and
then the court at Chennai transferring it to the court at Executing Court at
Chhindwara.
15. Though this case was vehemently argued in terms of Section
136 CPC and reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Rajender Singh Vs. Ramdhar Singh and another (2001) 6 SCC 213
wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the procedure
described under Section 136 CPC is not mandatory so long as the court
affecting the attachment has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
attachment. In the present case, the court having jurisdiction over the
property was the court at Chhindwara and therefore the arbitrator has sent the
order to the concerned court at Chhindwara.
16. As per Section 17 of Act of 1996 as amended in the year 2015,
now the interim measures of the arbitration tribunal in terms of Section 17 of
Act of 1996 are enforceable under the code of civil procedure in the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
7 MP-7477-2025
manner as if it is an order of the court. Therefore the provisions of CPC
would apply with its full force to the matters of execution and enforcement
of interim measures under Section 17 of Act of 1996 and looking to
Section 39, the arbitrator being the court which passed the decree, could have
sent it for execution to another court of competent jurisdiction before whom
the person has property and resides and voluntarily carries on business which
would be the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 39 CPC.
17. Therefore no error of jurisdiction is found in the impugned order
passed by the Executing Court in entertaining the application for
enforcement of award passed by the arbitrator at Chennai.
18. All other grounds regarding legality of the order of arbitrator at
Chennai cannot be gone into by this court because the seat of arbitration is at
Chennai and such matters can not be adjudicated before the court in State of
Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is set at liberty to challenge the aforesaid
order of the arbitrator. Though the counsel for the petitioner had argued that
the possession of the trucks has already been taken over by the finance
company and on the other hand counsel for the respondent finance company
had argued that possession has not been handed over by the petitioner and
there are outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Crores, but this court does
not intend to get into this controversy because this controversy has to be
adjudicated by the court having jurisdiction under Section 37 of Act of
1996. The petitioner may avail that remedy, if so advised.
19. So far as the argument that the note of attachment has been
made in the revenue record is concerned, the note having been made in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21367
8 MP-7477-2025
revenue record of the fact of attachment is not beyond the order passed by
the arbitrator because the arbitrator had directed the concerned registration
office also to make a note. Since the land is not registered under the
Registration Act 1908, therefore, the Executing Court has ordered to make a
note in the revenue record. Revenue records are not documents of title and a
note being made in the revenue record does not in any manner substantively
prejudice the petitioner.
20. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere in the well
reasoned order passed by the Executing Court and reserving liberty to the
petitioner to file appeal under Section 37 CPC before the competent court,
the petitions stand dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-03-2026
16:24:56
