‘Any party ’ can obtain interim relief from the court at three stages , According to the Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act , 1996.: New Delhi High Court .

The matter was concerned about the repayment of the outstanding loan amount from the other party, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  VIBHU BAKHRU, in the matter PNB Housing Finance Limited V. Parulben  Pareshbhai Thakkar, dealt with the issue where the loan amount was supposed to be repaid to the petitioner.

The 1st thing to look into this case was that the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Inter alia, praying for 3 reasons and 1 of  them  are :

  1. Pass a direction to the respondents to furnish monetary security before this Hon’ble Court for repayment of the outstanding loan amount.”

‘Financial institution’ was notified under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002. The petitioner claims that it had granted a loan of a sum of ₹5,13,14,800/- by a Loan Agreement dated 25.01.2018 to the respondents against the security of immovable property – property situated at FP No. 32/1/2, Revenue Khata 430, Old Survey No.1101 Devnandan Parisar 1, Adalaj Road, Adalaj Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382421 (hereafter ‘the Property’).

Then the property was mortgaged in favour of the petitioner by deposit of title deeds. The petitioner claims that the respondents have defaulted in paying the equated monthly instalments (EMI) of ₹8,78,636 and therefore, an event of default has occurred. Considering the averments made by the petitioner, this Court had, by an order dated 19.03.2020, restrained the respondent from disposing of, selling, alienating, transferring or creating any encumbrance or third party interest in any manner whatsoever in respect of the Property, Meanwhile court had noticed that the petitioner had not taken the necessary steps to effect service of notice on the respondents.

 Mr Varma, the counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents were served last week. He submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed for several reasons. He also states that it is obvious that the primary purpose of the petitioner was to secure an ad-interim order to pressurise the respondents. Second, he submits that fact no dispute survives between the parties. He states that the respondents pursuant to the notices, paid the outstanding EMIs and the respondents are continuing to regularly pay the EMIs to date. He states that this is perhaps the reason why the petitioner has not taken any steps for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal but has not been candid with this Court in this regard.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it was of the opinion that – “ At this stage, this court does not consider it necessary to further evaluate the contentions as to whether there was any default on the part of the respondents or whether the petitioner has foreclosed the loan granted to the respondents. It is admitted that the petitioner holds the title deeds to the Property and there is no allegation that in the past eighteen months the respondents have acted in any manner to deprive the petitioner of its security. It is material to note that the petitioner had approached this court for urgent interim measures but has not taken any steps to communicate the ex-parte ad interim order to the respondents for almost one and a half years. It is, thus, clear that there is no urgency in the matter because, without service of the order dated 19.03.2020 on the respondents, the same would not be operative.” Dated on 25th August 2021. 

Click here to read Judgment 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *