The court emphasized the importance of honoring financial agreements and the obligation to pay installments due under the agreement, rejecting the appellant's attempts to overreach the creditor and the court process.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

CM NO. 6329/2014 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stand disposed of.

FAO 71/2014 & CM No. 6328/2014 (U/s 151 CPC for recalling of order)

1. The main appeal was filed impugning the order of the court below passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 whereby the hypothecated plant/machinery/vehicle was directed to be repossessed by the creditor/respondent herein.

2. Challenge was laid to the order of the court below dated 6.11.2013 and this Court on 10.3.2014 stayed the operation of the impugned order by making the following observations:-

C.M. No.4557/2014 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No.4558/2014 (condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned reserving liberty to the respondent, if it so thinks fit, to apply for variation.

C.M. stands disposed of.

+ FAO No.71/2014 and C.M. No.4556/2014 (stay)

3. Correct certified copy of the impugned order be filed within one week.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that even as per the case of the respondent, appellant has regularly paid all the instalments except about four instalments. It is argued that appellant has no intention whatsoever to transfer the hypothecated machinery/vehicles. It is argued that the appellant has certain financial difficulties as a result of which it is negotiating with various creditors, and even assuming there are some defaults, orders of appointment of a receiver amount to, in the facts of the present case, execution after a decree is obtained. It is further argued that the appellant does not have any malafide intention and would either arrive at a settlement with its creditors or would ensure that the dues as claimed payable in law would be cleared. Counsel for the appellant also argues that there is a single agreement for grant of a loan of Rs.5.32 crores, however, surprisingly as many as about 24 separate petitions have been filed under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the purpose of which can only be malafide because petitions would have listed before different Courts, and in fact have been listed before different Courts. The last argument urged it is stated has manifestation with respect to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court also.

5. In view of the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant and subject to the appellant filing an undertaking in the Court below that hypothecated machinery/goods/vehicles will not be in any manner transferred or encumbered, till further orders unless varied by the Court, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned order dated 6.11.2013.

6. Notice be issued to respondent No.1 as also its counsel, on filing of process fee, both in the ordinary method as well as by registered post AD, returnable on 14th July, 2014. Dasti.”

3. The aforesaid order clearly records that the appellant has regularly paid all installments except about four installments. It is on this understanding of the fact that the operation of the impugned order of the court below was stayed by this Court.

4. Respondent who has filed the fresh application being CM No.6328/2014 has brought to the attention of the Court that appellant firstly misrepresented at the time of seeking interim orders on 10.3.2014 that only four installments were due whereas on that date itself about 8 installments were due. It is argued on behalf of the applicant/respondent that in fact as of today, further installments have fallen due and approximately over 10 installments were not paid by the appellant who continues to take benefit of the machinery/vehicle which was purchased from the loan amount given by the respondent, but at the same time is refusing to pay the installments of loan. Effectively, what is happening is that the appellant by virtue of the ex parte order passed by this Court on 10.3.2014, is using this interim or