Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Parveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Poonam Securities Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO 20 of 2020, CM Appl. 1180 of 2020, CM Appl. 1182 of 2020 and CM Appl. 26555 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Arbitration
Headnote
(B) Dispute Resolution - Settlement between parties - Parties reached a full and final settlement, leading to the conclusion that no further claims remained - (Para 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver for possession of an autorickshaw without receiving notice and disputed a loan transaction. Subsequently, the dispute was resolved through payment to the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order, recognizing the settlement reached by the parties.
Issues: The core issue was whether the appointment of a receiver was justified without prior notice and whether the dispute was satisfactorily resolved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that after the parties reached a settlement, there were no remaining disputes to adjudicate, thus rendering the appointment of a receiver unnecessary.
Result: Appeal allowed and the impugned order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenged prior court order regarding vehicle possession. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant disputed notice and loan transaction; settled disputes. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondents confirm settlement and return of vehicle. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. record taken of the parties' agreement and resolution. (Para 6) |
| 5. appeal allowed; order set aside based on settlement. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns order dated 15.07.2019 whereby on a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a receiver was appointed to take possession of the vehicle of the appellant i.e. TVS King Autorickshaw, bearing registration no. DL-1RQ-5078, Engine No. 4193551, Chassis No. 25458.
2. It was contended by the appellant that no notice was served on the appellant prior to passing of the impugned order. He further had disputed the loan transaction.
3. Subsequently, parties have settled their disputes. Appellant has paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the respondent in full and final settlement towards discharge of the loan taken from the respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the claims have been settled and now there is no claim left against the appellant or the subject vehicle and all dues of the respondents have been fully and finally settled. He submits that No-objection Certificate towards discharge of the loan has also been issued to the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that in view of the discharge of the loan, subject vehicle has already been returned to the appellant.
6. The statement is taken on record.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 15.07.2019 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of above referred settlement.
8. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
