SUNIL CHAUDHARY Vs. CARZONRENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the facts in all the above said matters are common, therefore, all the petitions and pending applications as well as the contempt petitions are disposed of by a single common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in all the matters, who are the drivers, have filed the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17th September, 2013. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were offered an arrangement to own a vehicle at easy daily installment plan and also the assured business at a revenue sharing basis by the respondent - Company. The petitioners agreed to the arrangement and executed hire purchase and ownership agreement with the respondent -Company. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have paid some upfront amount/down payment and certain amount on daily basis. However, the respondent - Company stopped giving them the business and it was difficult for the petitioners to earn their livelihood. Not only that, the respondent -Company also took the possession of the vehicles forcibly from some of the drivers.

(3.) THE respondent filed the petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Addl. District Judge (South -West -I), Dwarka, New Delhi, on the basis of arbitration clause subsist in the On 10th September, 2013, the agreement executed by the petitioner. following order was passed by the learned ADJ in one of the said arbitration petitions: -