Delhi High Court
Fullerton India Credit Co Ltd vs Praveen Ranjan on 20 March, 2013
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 333/2013
% Date of Decision: March 20, 2013
FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT CO LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Adv.
versus
PRAVEEN RANJAN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
CM No.4861/2013 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) 333/2013
1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') before the
Ld.ADJ for appointment of receiver, grant of injunction and seeking re-
possession of vehicle borrowed by the respondent.
2. In the petition under Section 9 of the Act, it is alleged that a loan of
`35,000/- was granted to the respondent vide loan agreement dated
26.05.2012 for the purchase of two wheeler to be repaid in equal monthly
instalments of `1859/- and the tenure of loan was 24 months. The case of
the petitioner is that only 1 instalment was received from respondent,
thereafter, he had defaulted in the payment, as such, demand of
`40,222.10/- was made from the respondent vide notice dated 23.11.2012
but the respondent did not make any payment and accordingly, the aforesaid
petition was filed by the petitioner.
3. Before the Ld. ADJ prayer was made for ex parte order of re-
possession of vehicle by appointing a receiver. However, ld. ADJ vide
impugned order has declined the same and has issued notice by observing
that no ground is made out for the grant of ex parte order of re-possession of
the vehicle. The notice has been issued to respondent for 27.04.2013.
4. Aggrieved with the said order, the present petition is filed.
5. Ld. counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner has made out a
prima facie case by showing that the default has been made by the
respondent in repayment as such respondent has no right to continue with
the possession of the mortgaged property i.e. vehicle in question. The notice
of demand has also been sent to respondent despite that the respondent has
not paid the amount. In these circumstances, ld. trial court ought to have
protected the interest of petitioner by granting ex parte order of repossession
of vehicle by appointing a receiver.
6. The trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case has issued notice to the respondent. It is not a matter of right to get the
ex parte order of re-possession of vehicle in such cases. The person
applying for ex parte order has to satisfy the court that there exists a prima
facie case in his favour and has to establish that irreparable injury would be
caused to him and that balance of convenience also lies in his favour in a
case where the vehicle is to be urgently seized. The petitioner has to make
out a case for grant of interim measures of protection. Considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, the ld. trial court has held that the necessary
ingredients for the grant of ex parte re-possession/injunction are not made
out. The trial court has exercised its discretion in refusing to appoint ex
parte receiver. There is nothing on record to show that discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily. No illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls
for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is
at liberty to apply to the ld. trial court for preponing the date of hearing.
8. The petition stands dismissed.
9. No costs.
CM No.4860/2013 (for appointment of receiver)
In view of above order, no further orders are required on this
application. The same stands disposed of as infructuous.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
MARCH 20, 2013
srb
