Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Snehlata - Appellant
Versus
Mahindra And Mahindra Finance Ltd - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 268 of 2021, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 43679-43681 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2021
Failure to clear arrears of EMIs despite a moratorium and claiming financial hardship due to Covid-19 does not qualify for interim protection under the Arbitration Act.
Headnote:
Arbitration Act - Loan Default - The court dismissed the appellant's petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act, as the appellant failed to clear the arrears of EMIs and did not qualify for interim protection.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had availed a loan for purchasing a commercial vehicle but failed to make the required EMIs. The respondent sought coercive action, and the appellant filed a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the appellant had multiple pending EMIs and was unable to clear the arrears, even after a moratorium period. The court declined to grant any interim protection and dismissed the appellant's petition.
Issues: Non-payment of EMIs, grant of moratorium, appellant's financial situation due to Covid-19.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's failure to clear the arrears of EMIs, despite the grant of a moratorium and the appellant's claim of financial hardship due to the Covid-19 situation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no interim protection was granted to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Appellant impugns order dated 08.04.2021 whereby the Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Appellant had availed of a loan for purchasing a Maruti Ertiga vehicle, a green commercial vehicle for commercial purposes. On account of non payment of EMIs, Respondent had sought to initiate coercive action. Appellant filed the Subject Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
3. The Trial Court in the Impugned order has noticed the submissions of the respondent that as on 08.04.2021, 13 EMIs were payable by the appellant in respect of both the loan agreements. It was also noticed that after grant of moratorium of five months, the EMIs were to be recovered from the appellant.
4. The trial court further noticed the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that after grant of moratorium of 5 months, as on that date 8 EMIs were pending and in case appellant were to pay at least one of the pending EMIs along with regular payable EMIs with effect from 01.04.2021, the loan account would be regularized.
5. The trial court noticed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that he had no money even to pay the regular EMIs on account of Covid-19 situation. Said order was passed nearly 8 months ago. Even today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not in a position to clear the arrears of EMIs.
6. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 declining to grant any interim protection. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
