ITIHAS SAMANTRAY Vs. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge at Bhubaneswar bearing Arbitration (P) No. 227 of 2013 with a prayer to direct the opposite party i.e. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has purchased a vehicle by availing loan from the Tata Motors Finance Ltd. As there was default in repayment of the same, the matter was referred to the arbitration and the sole arbitrator passed award in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party as yet has not instituted in a case for execution of the award. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award. Therein the petitioner filed an application for restraining the opposite party from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the reported case of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2005 AIR(SC) 1514wherein at paragraph-10 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: