GANESHNARAYAN BRIJLAL (P.) LTD. Vs. BAKELAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act for stay of the suit filed by the Respondent Bakelal Singh against the Petitioner.

(2.) Bakelal's case is that he wanted to purchase a new Tata -Mercedez -Benz chassis at a price of Rs. 37,837 -25 P. payable in instalments as provided in the agreement. The Respondent No. 2 Setablal Singh was the guarantor. Bakelal has paid by instalments to the total extent of about Rs. 48,000 out of which he holds receipts for a sum of Rs. 42,570. He contends that the Petitioner company acted as the financiers and the documents in blank printed forms executed by him and the guarantor were so executed on the understanding that they would constitute a financial agreement. He has paid interest on the said commercial loan at the rate of Rs. 190 per month for which also he holds receipts. Bakelal now apprehends that the Petitioner company has been trying to seize the said lorry from his lawful custody and possession. Bakelal claims to be the owner of the said lorry and also for a decree for Rs. 6,573 by way of refund for excess payment. Under the circumstances in the plaint filed by Bakelal he has asked, inter alia, for a declaration that he is the owner of the said motor lorry and a declaration that the printed forms of agreement or agreements which were signed by him and the said guarantor were in reality a financial agreement. In one of the prayers an order for injunction has been sought for restraining the company from taking possession of the said lorry from the Plaintiff.

(3.) After filing the said suit in December, 1966, Bakelal made an application herein, inter alia, for an order for injunction restraining the Defendant company from seizing the said motor vehicle. On the returnable date of the said motion the learned Counsel for the company opposed the prayer for an interim order of injunction, but it was recorded that he was appearing without prejudice to his client's right to make an application for stay of the proceedings under the Arbitration Act. An ad interim order of injunction was granted. This happened on December 23, 1966. On that date the matter was directed to appear again as a new motion on January 2, 1967, when the company made this application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act and obtained an ad interim order for stay in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. In making such order the Court made it clear that the said stay order would not affect the pending application for injunction in the suit. Thereafter, on the same day the application made in the said suit was called on as new motion and direction for filing of affidavits was given by the Court in the presence of the counsel for the company who appeared therein. On completion of their respective affidavits the two matters have now come up before me for disposals thereof.