Judicial intervention in arbitration matters is limited; grievances arising from private loan agreements should utilize statutory remedies and not public law actions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The present writ proceedings arise from a challenge to the order dated 22.3.2025 passed in Arbitration Petition No. MHF/144042/L10/2025 by the Learned Sole Arbitrator, Shri Vinod Kumar Gandhi.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The factual background reveals that Late Pabitra Barik had purchased the aforementioned Maruti Swift ZXI vehicle on 28.10.2023, availing a loan of Rs. 8,22,207/- from Opposite Party No.1, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited. The Loan Agreementdetails the contractual obligations of the borrower, including repayment over 60 monthly instalments and the governing clauses, notably Clause 25, which exclusively vests territorial jurisdiction in the courts at Chennai. The instalment schedule, the rate of interest, and the security conditions form part of Schedule-1 and Schedule-2 of the agreement, as visible from the loan documents appended in the petition.

3. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of entering into the loan agreement, the Petitioner’s deceased husband was covered by a group insurance policy administered by Opposite Party No.3, Max Life Insurance.In support of this assertion, she relies upon the Certificate of Insurance which, according to her, assured payment of death benefits to the nominee upon demise of the insured. The petitioner highlights that the lender, Opposite Party No.1, is listed as the Master Policy Holder, thereby enabling it to claim the insured amount—stated to be approximately Rs. 8,05,000/- —to cover outstanding liabilities.

4. The petitioner submits that her husband dutifully complied with the terms of the agreement until his unfortunate demise eight months later on 11.7.2024.

5. Following this event, the petitioner claims to have duly notified the lender by submitting an application on 31.7.2024, wherein she informed the Opposite Parties of the demise and requested appropriate action in view of the insurance coverage aligned to the loan.

6. However, it appears that the Opposite Party No. 1 has initiated Arbitration Proceeding vide ARBP No. MHF/144042/L10/2025 before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator Shri Vinod Kumar Gandhi on account of default in making payments as per the schedule to the loan agreement.

7. In the said ARBP No. MHF/144042/L10/2025, Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application u/s 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking possession of the vehicle, and the Ld. Sole Arbitrator vide the impugned order dated 22.3.2025 was pleased to direct the surrender of the vehicle.

8. Aggrieved, the present Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

9. Now that the facts leading up to the instant Petition has been laid down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

10. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the arbitral order dated 22.03.2025 on the ground that the proceedings were unlawfully initiated and concluded against her deceased husband, Late Pabitra Barik, who passed away on 11.7.2024. It is asserted that the arbitration petition was filed months after his death and without any notice to her as legal heir or nominee, thereby vitiating the proceedings for want of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice. Despite her written intimation dated 31.7.2024 informing the lender of the borrower’s demise, the arbitrator proceeded ex parte, made no effort to ascertain the legal represent