The main legal point established is the determination of jurisdiction based on the situs of the contract and the interpretation of loan agreement clauses regarding termination notice and default.

K.B.K. Vasuki, J.

1. The first respondent in A.No.3510 of 2012 is the applicant herein. The application A.No.3510 of 2012 is filed for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to seize Hydraulic Drilling Pilling Rig more fully described in the schedule appended to the judges summon either in the premises of the respondents or wherever it is found and deliver the same to the custody of the applicant.

2. The applicant M/s. L & T Finance Ltd has come forward with the application A.No.3510 of 2012 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in exercise of their right available to the applicant as contained in Article 13 of the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 29.12.2009 entered into between the applicant and the first respondent in respect of the loan sanctioned for purchase of the schedule mentioned equipment. The second respondent stood as guarantor for due repayment of the amount and executed a separate guarantee deed dated 29.12.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement, the borrower agreed to repay the amount in monthly installments and the finance company is entitled to treat the entire amount as due and recall the entire debt, in the event of any default on the part of the borrower, in addition to the right available to the finance company to repossess the equipment, for the purchase of the same, loan is sanctioned.

3. In the case in hand, the borrower admittedly committed default in payment of amount, which compelled the lender to take steps to seize equipment. The lender apprehending law and order problem approached this court for appointment of Advocate commissioner to seize the equipment and the same was ordered exparte on 17.8.2012. In pursuance of the order, the Advocate Commissioner seized the vehicle at Gujarat on 2.9.2012 and the same was handed over to the applicant's representative on due acknowledgment. Thereafter, the first respondent in A.No.3510 of 2012/borrower has come forward with the present application directing the applicant to hand over the equipment, which was seized by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the order of this court dated 17.8.2012 and dismiss the application A.No.3510 of 2012 as not maintainable.

4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties i.e., finance company, borrower and guarantor are referred to, as per their rank in A.No.3510 of 2012.

5. The borrower has, in this application A.No.3914 of 2012, challenged the correctness of the order passed by this Court in A.No.3510 of 2012 by raising both legal and factual objections. The legal objection raised herein is that A.No.3510 of 2012 is not maintainable before this court as no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. The other objections raised herein are that (i) as the lawyer's notice dated 7.7.2012, which is purported to be the termination notice, is never served upon the borrower, there is no termination and in the absence of effective termination, the right of repossession does not accrue and (ii) there was no default committed on the part of the first respondent and the amount is recalled contrary to the agreement pending reconciliation of the accounts between the parties.

6. As far as legal objection raised regarding lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application, is concerned, according to the borrower, the registered office of the finance company and the borrower company are at Visakhapattinam and the entire transaction was concluded with Vizag branch of the first respondent and the loan cum hypothecation agreement was signed and executed and the loan amount was disbursed all at Visakhapattinam and the payment was made directly to Mait India Foundation Equipment Private Limited at Navi Mumbai and the legal notice relating to the transaction was sent only to Visakhapattinam branch and Chennai where no part of cause of action arose, is falsely referred to as one of the places, wherein part of cause of action arose only to maintain