MAGMA FINCORP LIMITED Vs. SADHO YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order whereby the revisionist's application for referring the dispute between the parties to an Arbitrator in the light of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties had been rejected.

(2.) THE revisionists are the financiers of the opposite -party, who had taken a loan from them to enable him to buy a new truck.

(3.) MR . R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionists with reference to an Apex Court's judgment in SBP &Co.v. Patel Engineerings Ltd. and Another, 2005 8 SLT 405, contended that the arbitration clause in the agreement executed by the parties should have been taken recourse to and a reference made. We have carefully examined the observations and the findings of the Apex Court in para 19 of the decision and we are of the decisive view that this decision is not squarely attracted to the case in hand as according to the complainant the revisionist had forcibly seized his truck and removed the same out of his possession with application of force. It is noteworthy that there is no provision in the agreement regarding forcible seizure of the truck. The clause relating to repossession of the vehicle in case of default on the part of the complainant simply refers to the peaceful way of entering into possession of the vehicle and not the method of violence whereby armed or unarmed persons are pressed into service for taking forcible possession of the truck. The complainant pleaded in his complaint that the muscle men of the revisionists had on 12.10.2008 snatched away his truck No. UP 66 D 9156. This kind of seizure was perhaps not thought of under the agreement. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity.