Back
2009 Supreme(Cal) 269
High Court Of Calcutta
B. Bhattacharya, Tapan Kumar Dutt, JJ.
G E Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd : Appellant
Versus
Amritajit Mitra : Respondent
Decided On : March 31,2009
Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, Kakali Chatterjee, Lal Ratan Mondal, Mainak Bose, Partha Chakravarty, Phiroze Edulji, S.P.Roychowdhury, Shila Sarkar, Sidharth Luthra,
A party cannot seek to convert their suit to an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to avoid the consequences of an agreement, and that the financier was entitled to take possession of the vehicle in case of default.
Headnote:
The Court held that the plaintiffs' claim that their signatures were taken on blank papers for the loan agreement was not valid, as they had accepted the loan and made payments according to the agreement. The Court also held that the plaintiffs could not seek to convert their suit to an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to avoid the consequences of the agreement, and that the financier was entitled to take possession of the vehicle in case of default.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed suits seeking a declaration that they were entitled to get the papers and documents upon which their signatures were taken by the financier on blank papers at the time of settlement of loan. A further declaration was prayed for declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the papers and documents upon which their signatures were taken by the financier on blank papers at the time of settlement of loan. A further decree for permanent injunction was prayed for restraining the financier, their men, agents and associates from seizing or taking possession of the concerned vehicle or disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of such vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiffs' claim that their signatures were taken on blank papers for the loan agreement was not valid, as they had accepted the loan and made payments according to the agreement. The Court also held that the plaintiffs could not seek to convert their suit to an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to avoid the consequences of the agreement, and that the financier was entitled to take possession of the vehicle in case of default.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' claim that their signatures were taken on blank papers for the loan agreement was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiffs' claim that their signatures were taken on blank papers for the loan agreement was not valid, as they had accepted the loan and made payments according to the agreement. The Court also held that the plaintiffs could not seek to convert their suit to an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to avoid the consequences of the agreement, and that the financier was entitled to take possession of the vehicle in case of default.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals filed by the financier and set aside the orders extending the ad interim injunction in the suits which were yet to be converted and disposing of the two converted applications under Section 9 of the Act by granting injunction.
1. THE above twenty-one first miscellaneous appeals with the connected applications were heard analogously as the points involved in all these appeals were more or less similar. The facts involved in these appeals are also to some extent similar with slight variations in some of the cases. Accordingly, we decided to hear out all these appeals together and have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. ALL these appeals are preferred by the financier and are directed against similar orders passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby extending the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted in the proceeding by restraining the financier from taking possession of the vehicle which is the subject-matter of the dispute till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction in spite of the fact that the financier-appellant entered appearance and filed applications under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act pointing out existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties and in some of the matters, the appellant filed written objection to the application for injunction opposing extension by pointing out suppression of material facts in the application.
It appears from record that twenty-one different suits were filed by the different respondents in these appeals thereby praying for declaration that they interfere with the possession of those plaintiffs in the vehicles. A further declaration was prayed for declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the papers and documents upon which their signatures were taken by the financier on blank papers at the time of settlement of loan. A further decree for permanent injunction was prayed for restraining the financier, their men, agents and associates from seizing or taking possession of the concerned vehicle or disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of such vehicle. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the plaints of those suits was that the plaintiffs for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle on loan approached the defendant and as a condition of granting such loan, the plaintiffs we Sukumar Nandi and asked to sign on various blank papers and blank cheques were taken from them with the assurance of giving the terms of the agreement to the plaintiffs in future, but till the filing of the suit, the financier did not supply the papers containing the terms and conditions of grant of such loan. According to the plaintiffs, they are unaware of the terms of grant of such loan and by taking advantage of the signatures taken on the papers, some oppressive terms have been introduced and for alleged violation of such terms, the financier was trying to seize the vehicles purchased by them with the amount taken as a loan.
3. IN all these suits, all the plaintiffs, however, admitted that the defendant financed them and handed over the chassis of the vehicle to them and that in the register of the Motor Vehicles Authority it is recorded that the plaintiffs are the these matters also admitted that they paid back some amounts by instalments at a specified rate for some months.
4. IN all these suits, on the basis of selfsame allegation as made in the plaint, the plaintiffs came up with the applications for temporary injunction for restraining the financier from disturbing their possession in the concerned vehicle and the learned Trial Judge, on such applications, issued notice upon the financier to show cause why the prayer for injunction should not be granted and at the same time, granted ad interim order of injunction or status quo regarding the vehicle for a limited period. It appears from record that in all these matters, defendant entered appearance and filed application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) thereby alleging existence of the arbitration clause for referring the dispute involved in the suit to the arbitral Tribunal. W
