PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. VIKAS BATRA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 17.7.2012 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been dismissed. Petitioner/applicant was dispossessed of his vehicle Three Wheeler Scooter (TSR) on account of an ex parte order passed by the court in the petition under Section 9 of the Act.

(2.) (i) Counsel for the petitioner, and who was the applicant in the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed before the court below in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, argues two basic aspects before this Court. First aspect which is argued is with reference to the legal notice dated 12.8.2011 issued by the petitioner in the petition under Section 9 of the Act the Act viz the alleged lender, to the respondent in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, viz the alleged borrower, and in which notice the lender has claimed a sum of Rs.3,96,000/- from the borrower. It is argued that however in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act in para 5 it is stated by the lender that only a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- was due on 15.12.2011 ie it is argued that the difference of Rs.3,96,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/- is the amount which has been paid by the present petitioner to the lender and that a fraud has been played upon the present petitioner that the vehicle has been taken from his possession in proceedings to which he was not a party and in which only the respondents being the lender and the alleged borrower inter se were parties.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner/applicant in an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, argues that in reply to this petition in this Court the respondent no.1/lender is once again claiming not an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- but an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- and which indicates that the fraud is played upon the petitioner who had in fact got re-financed the vehicle which was originally financed by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2.