KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Vs. MORBITS TECHNOLOGIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions are filed by M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited, a non-banking financial institution, the first respondent in W.P.(C)Nos.4325/16 and 8667/2016 respectively, challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 16/3/2016; whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the first respondent in the appeals and quashed the interim order passed by the Arbitrator under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'Act 1996', to the extent permitting appellant/claimant to take possession of the secured asset vehicle from whomsoever the vehicle is found by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The learned Single Judge found that an Arbitrator is not vested with powers under Sec. 17 (2) of Act 1996 to enforce the order passed by it, and further that for enforcing the order given by the Arbitrator, the intervention of the court in contemplation of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be sought for. It is thus challenging the legality and the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appeals are preferred. Since the subject matter is one and the same, by the agreement of the parties, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Basic facts for the disposal of the writ petitions are as follows: The party respondents in the appeals have availed loans from the appellant by executing hypothecation agreements for the purchase of vehicles which were to be repaid in equated monthly installments. Repayment was defaulted, consequent to which, on the basis of the agreement executed by and between the appellant and the party respondents, Arbitrator was appointed. Along with the claim petition appellant filed an application seeking an interim measure of repossession of the vehicles by appointing an advocate commissioner. The application for interim order was allowed and the advocate commissioner was directed to repossess the vehicle with police assistance. The learned Single Judge after assimilating the entire factual and legal situation in contemplation of the provisions of the Act 1996 has arrived at the conclusion that the order so passed by the Arbitrator cannot be sustained under law.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand for the State officials and perused the pleadings and material on record.