Jagdish Prasad v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Pratap Singh Sirohi, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the interim order dated 8.12.2010, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and has restrained the respondent from selling and alienating the truck in question, the appellant has approached this Court. Shortly the facts of the case are that on

1.9.2008, the appellant obtained a loan of Rs.7 lacs on a truck, bearing registration No.RJ-14-2G-7622, from the 2 respondent. An agreement was executed between them in which the appellant had agreed to repay the said loan in 42 installment of Rs.22,672 per month along with an interest of 8% per annum. Up to May, 2010, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.3,83,653. Thereafter, he did not pay any installment. Therefore, the respondent seized the truck. The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the trial court praying that the respondent may be directed not to sell or alienate the truck, or in the alternative, to appoint an independent receiver and handover the truck to him with the direction to deposit Rs.35,000/- per month in the Court. The respondent contested the application and prayed for rejection. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated

8.12.2010, learned trial court dismissed the application and directed the respondent not to sell or alienate the truck in question. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that in case the truck is kept ideal and is not used, the condition of the machinery will continue to deteriorate. Therefore, the value of the truck would depreciate with the flux of time. Moreover, the deterioration of the truck would not only cause a loss to the finance company, but would also be a 3 loss to the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge should have appointed a receiver or should have allowed that the truck be used by another transport. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. Allegedly, the appellant had defaulted in repayment of the loan amount for two months. Thus, the finance company was justified in claiming that the custody of the truck should be given back to it. Since the truck belongs to the finance company, it is for the finance company to ensure the best utilization of the vehicle during the period that the vehicle is in its possession. Moreover, the appellant, being the defaulter, cannot claim that he is more interested in the truck, and in the condition of the truck, than the finance company which is the owner of the truck. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned impugned. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Manoj solanki (R.S. CHAUHAN) J.