SURESH YADAV Vs. INDUS IND BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision has been filed questioning the validity of order dated 01. 11. 2008 passed by Sri Arvind Kumar, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhansi in suit No. 182 of 2008, Suresh Yadav vs Indus Ind Bank Ltd. , allowing the application filed by defendant-opposite party and directing the revisionist to take necessary steps for reference of the dispute to arbitration. Brief background of the case is that loan of Rs. 9,30,000/- was sanctioned for purchase of truck. After the said amount had been sanctioned, loan was to be repaid in instalments of Rs. 11,46,360/ -. There was default in making payment of instalment, as such the Bank filed civil misc. Arbitration Petition No. 40 of 2007, claiming a sum of Rs. 6,03,576/- towards loan agreement. Subsequent to the filing of said Misc. case, same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the debtor, Suresh yadav filed suit No. 182 of 2008, mentioning therein that the amount of loan was to be repaid in instalments of Rs. 11,46,360/ -. Last instalment was paid on 04. 11. 2007. Subsequent instalments have not been paid, as such on 17. 05. 2008 truck has been seized. In the said suit application was filed by the concerned Bank, contending that therein that inter se parties there was an agreement containing arbitration clause, as such suit was not liable to be continued. Said application was objected to by Suresh Yadav. Thereafter trial court on 01. 11. 2008 allowed the application of the Bank and directed the revisionist for necessary action to go in arbitration. At this juncture present revision has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has contended with vehemence that in the present case truck in question has been seized without recourse to legal proceedings for taking possession, and suit was filed independently of the agreement inter se parties, and as no question of breach of any term of the agreement or its interpretation was not involved in the suit, as such suit was perfectly maintainable and the dispute was not liable to be referred for arbitration. This fact is not disputed that there was loan agreement executed between the parties and it was agreed that all disputes, differences and/or claim arising out or touching upon this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Clause 23 of the said agreement provides as follows:

(3.) A bare perusal of arbitration clause 23 as mentioned in the loan agreement executed between the parties, makes it clear that all disputes, differences and/or claim arising out or touching upon this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter were to be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof was to be referred to the Sole Arbitrator of any Arbitrator nominated by the Lender. Clause 14. 0 defines events of defaults and Clause 15 deals with lender's right and specially Clause 15. 2 obliges borrower to return the assets, and further to take possession and recover the vehicle. The arbitration agreement was self explanatory, and once inter se parties transaction had taken place and breach of there was being alleged, and authority to take back vehicle was there, then in this background such a dispute had to be settled as per said arbitration agreement and the suit has rightly been disposed of, and revisionist has been directed to take necessary steps for reference of the dispute to arbitration. It is incorrect to say that breach of any term of the agreement was not involved in the suit, inasmuch as instalment was not timely paid. Thus breach was there and the Bank has proceeded to take possession of the vehicle in question. Civil revision has no substance. Consequently, Civil revision is dismissed.