w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dhani Ram v/s The Managing Director/Office-in-Chage, M/s Chola Mandlam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. & Others

    Civil Revision No.2934 of 2010

    Decided On, 16 February 2012

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL

    For the Petitioner: J.K. Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: DK Singhal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Plaintiff Dhani Ram has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 15.2.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala thereby allowing application moved by defendants/respondents under section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) and referring the dispute between the parties to Arbitrator.Plaintiff got financed a vehicle from the defendants by taking loan. It appears that there was some default in repayment of the loan.Consequently, the defendants repossessed the vehicle. The plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the vehicle i.e. truck No. HR-37-B-2363. Permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating said truck was also claimed.Defendants on appearance moved application under section 8 of the Act alleging that there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and therefore, the dispute is required to be referred to Arbitrator.The application was opposed by the plaintiff alleging that the defendants illegally and forcibly took away the vehicle from the plaintiff.If the defendants wanted the dispute to be referred to Arbitrator, they should not have taken the possession of the vehicle.Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 15.2.2010 allowed the defendants' application and referred the dispute to the Arbitrator. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already repaid Rs 7 lacs out of loan amount of Rs 11 lacs to the defendants. It was also contended that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire balance amount provided the vehicle is restored to the plaintiff.Counsel for the respondents contended that the vehicle has already been sold and therefore, the vehicle cannot be restored to the plaintiff-petitioner. As regards amount repaid by the plaintiff to the defendants, counsel for defendants/respondents pleaded ignorance about the same.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As regards restoration of the vehicle to the plaintiff, the said question can be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. Similarly, the question as to how much amount has been paid by the plaintiff to defendants and how much amount is still outstanding, is to be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. Arbitration cannot be declined on the basis of contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, agreement executed between the parties contains arbitration clause no. 23. Accordingly the matter has been rightly referred to the Arbitrator by the trial court by accepting application under section 8 of the Act moved by the defendants/respondents.

For the reasons aforesaid, I fi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nd no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
O R