The legal principle established is the court's discretion to grant interim injunctions based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss and hardship.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: 0Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed seeking interim injunction restraining the second respondent, his servants, assigns, agents, representatives, officers, trustees, beneficiaries, administrator/s or any other person claiming through or under them or under any instrument, whatsoever, from in any manner selling, alienating, transferring, parting with the possession of, dealing with, disposing of, inducting anyone into or developing or creating any third party right or interest of whatsoever nature and in any manner whatsoever in respect of their properties morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons.)1. This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking for an interim injunction to restrain the second respondent from alienating/encumbering the property morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons.

2. Notice was ordered in this application earlier by this Court and the notice has been duly served on the respondents, as seen from the affidavit of service filed by the learned counsel for the applicant enclosing the tracking report. The names of the respondents are also printed in the cause list today. Since the respondents have been duly served, they are set ex-parte in this application.

3. The applicant is a non-Banking Financial Institution. The first respondent has availed a loan from the applicant for the purchase of the vehicle under the loan agreement dated 20.03.2019. The total loan amount of Rs.14,40,000/- was repayable by first respondent in 48 equated monthly installments and each of the monthly installment payable is Rs.42,600/-.

4. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of this application, the respondents are defaulters in the repayment of the loan amount and whereabouts of the vehicle, which is the subject matter of hypothecation with the applicant, is also not known. Several ECS instructions given by the respondents towards the repayment of the loan to the applicant have also been returned dishonoured for the reasons “funds insufficient”. As seen from the Statement of Account filed along with this application, a sum of Rs.25,65,862/- is due and payable by first respondent to the applicant as on 24.07.2023. The second respondent is the co-borrower to the loan transaction, who has signed the loan agreement dated 20.03.2019 along with the first respondent. Both of them are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan to the applicant. The applicant had also issued a loan recall notice dated 21.12.2022 to the respondents. Despite the receipt of the same, the respondents have failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues to the applicant.

5. According to the applicant, the only security available to them is the property owned by the second respondent, which is morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons. The Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the said property has also been filed as a document along with this application, which has confirmed that the said property is owned by the second respondent. The said property is already attached at the behest of another non banking financial institution, as seen from the encumbrance certificate. The applicant has stated that the respondents have availed various loans and only in order to defeat and delay the payment to various creditors, the respondents are attempting to alienate the property morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons. In such circumstances, this application has been filed seeking for an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating/encumbering property morefully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons.

6. As seen from the documents filed along with this application and also as seen from the affidavit filed in support of this application, this Court is of the considered view that a prima-facie case has been made out by the applicant for grant of an interim injunctio