SAHIUDDIN SEKH Vs. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can 3375 of 2016 has been filed by the appellant seeking stay of the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Court below.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that T.S. 1355 of 2015 was filed and in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC therein prayer was made for temporary injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents from seizing and interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit vehicle. At the interim stage although an ad interim order of injunction was sought and this ad interim order of injunction was also passed on 24th September, 2015. The said injunction order was qualified by the following sentence :-

(3.) Therefore, the respondent was entitled to proceed in accordance with law and that is exactly what was done by the respondent. An application was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being Misc. Case No. 584 of 2016. In the said Misc. Case, order no. 2 was passed on 14th March, 2016 and although the application was filed on 22nd February, 2016, the said was served on 25th February, 2016. Thereafter, the application was filed and the matter was fixed on 14.02016 as will appear from the order dated 25th February, 2016. On the same date as will appear from the said order the respondent filed an application for appointment of Receiver and the petition was to be served on the appellant. In fact on 25th February, 2016, the appellant prayed for time to file the written objection on the ground stated therein and it is because of this reason that the matter was fixed on 14th March, 2016. On 14th March, 2016, inspite of direction given no written objection was filed, no step was taken to seek an extension of time too. In fact none appeared on behalf of the appellant. The prayer for ad interim injunction was refused but ad interim order for appointment of Receiver was allowed. A Receiver was appointed for the purpose of taking possession of the subject vehicle. Therefore, we have two orders pitted against each other, one is the order dated 24th September, 2015 and the order dated 14th March, 2016. The order dated 24th September, 2015 was filed in the suit filed by the appellant while the appointment of Receiver was passed by the order dated 14th March, 2016. It is pertinent to mention that from the order dated 14th March, 2016, this appeal has been filed and although counsel for the appellant submits that no order of appointment of Receiver could have been passed in view of the order of injunction passed, but this point is a mistaken belief of the appellant's counsel as in the order dated 24th September, 2015 liberty was given to the respondent to proceed in accordance with law and "in accordance" with law would mean that the respondent was entitled to file an application under the laws of the land, which will be applicable to him and this is exactly what he did. In fact from the order dated 24th September, 2015 no appeal has been filed by the appellant. That is that portion which reads as follows :-