P.A. TO JUDGE v. CHITAMBARESH, J

OP(C) NO. 2682/2012APPENDIXPETITIONER(S) EXHIBITSEXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 19.03.2009.EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 09.05.2011.EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 174/2012 DATED 05.06.2012.EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 174/2012 DATED 29.06.2012.EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP NO. 174/2012 DATED 16.07.2012.EXHIBIT P6:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRP (NPD) NO. 574/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, DATED 26.08.2011.RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J--------------------------------OP(C) NO. 2682 OF 2012------------------------------------Dated this the 16th day of October, 2012JUDGMENTThe court below was correct in holding that the subject matter of the arbitration is at Kannur within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Thalassery. The mere fact that the seat of arbitrator is at Ernakulam will not clothe the award holder with the right to levy execution in the District Court at Ernakulam. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in Muralimohan C.K. Vs. M/s. Asok Finance Corporationand another [2008 (3) KLJ 1016].2.Therefore no question of transmitting the award from the court of the District Judge of Ernakulam to the court of the District Judge of Thalassery arises. The court below has followed the judgment in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs.Sivakama Sundari S. Narayanan S.B. Murthy of the HighCourt of Madras. The petitioner is free to enforce the arbitralaward under Section 36 of the Arbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996 on the file of the court of the District Judge of Thalassery. 2OP(C) No. 2682/2012The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above clarification and the Original Petition is disposed of.V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGEncd