Bombay High Court Allows Section 9 Petition for Appointment of Receiver and Injunction in Loan Default Case — Lender Entitled to Interim Measures to Secure Repayment of Outstanding Amount. The court held that where a borrower defaults and the loan agreement provides for repossession, the lender is entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including appointment of receiver and injunction to prevent alienation of assets.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, L & T Finance Limited, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures against the respondents, Mr. Damodar Bandekar (borrower) and Mr. Barkelo Gaonkar (guarantor). The petitioner had sanctioned a loan of Rs.70,52,000/- to the first respondent on 5th October 2011, under a loan cum hypothecation agreement. The second respondent executed a deed of guarantee on the same date. The respondents defaulted in repayment, leading the petitioner to issue a demand cum termination notice on 21st January 2013, calling for payment of Rs.72,34,403/- with overdue compensation at 36% per annum. The respondents did not respond. The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement and appointed an arbitrator. The court noted that the respondents did not file any affidavit in reply, and the loan agreement contained clauses allowing repossession and sale of assets upon default. The court allowed the petition, appointing a receiver to take possession of the hypothecated assets and granting an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the assets. The receiver was directed to take possession and sell the assets, with the proceeds to be deposited in court. The court also directed the respondents to pay costs of Rs.25,000/-.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Loan Default - The petitioner sought appointment of receiver and injunction to secure repayment of loan after default by borrower and guarantor. The court held that since the respondents did not file any reply and the loan agreement provided for repossession and sale of assets, the petitioner was entitled to interim relief to protect its interest pending arbitration. (Paras 1-14)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including appointment of receiver and injunction, to secure the outstanding loan amount and prevent alienation of assets.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Court appointed a receiver to take possession of the hypothecated assets and granted an injunction restraining respondents from alienating or encumbering the assets. Receiver directed to take possession and sell the assets, with proceeds deposited in court. Respondents directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/-.

Law Points

  • Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement
  • Default
  • Interim Measures
  • Appointment of Receiver
  • Injunction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 90

Arbitration Petition No.529 of 2013

2013-12-18

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr.Anand Poojari, a/w. Mr.Nilesh Gala, Mr.Ankit Shah, i/b. M/s S.I. Joshi & Co., for Petitioner. Mr.Rohan Sawant, a/w.Mr.Nikhil Rajani, i/b. V.Deshpande & CO. for the Respondents.

L & T Finance Limited

Mr. Damodar Bandekar (Borrower) and Mr. Barkelo Gaonkar (Guarantor)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures pending arbitration.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought appointment of receiver to take possession of hypothecated assets and injunction restraining respondents from alienating or encumbering the assets.

Filing Reason

Respondents defaulted in repayment of loan, and petitioner sought to secure the outstanding amount.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including appointment of receiver and injunction, to secure the outstanding loan amount and prevent alienation of assets.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that respondents committed default in repayment, no response to demand notice, and no affidavit in reply filed, so averments deemed admitted. Petitioner relied on clauses 12, 13, and 14 of the loan agreement allowing repossession and sale of assets upon default.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a lender is entitled to interim measures such as appointment of receiver and injunction to secure repayment of loan when the borrower defaults and the loan agreement provides for repossession and sale of assets.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks interim measures. Since respondents have committed default in making repayment, there was no response to the notice of the demand and since respondents have not filed any affidavit in reply, averments made in the petition are deemed to have been admitted.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No.529 of 2013 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Respondents did not file any reply. The court heard arguments and passed the order on 18th December 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Back Wages to Employee Acquitted in Corruption Case — Denial Must Be Reasoned. Reinstatement After Acquittal Does Not Automatically Entitle Back Wages; Employer Must Consider Nature of Acquittal and Conduct Under Articles 1...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Restoration of First Appeal Dismissed in Default, Emphasizes Liberal Construction of Procedural Law to Advance Substantial Justice. The Court held that an order refusing to readmit an appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is appealab...