2025:BHC-NAG:8666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3670 OF 2024

1) Shri Sunilkumar Prakashchandra Sahu,

(judgment-debtor), Proprietor,

M/s Sahu Bricks and Building Material Suppliers, Off. at : Near Chitra Talkies,

Bharatsingh Chowk, Pulgaon,

Wardha – 442 302.

2) Anuradha Sunil Sahu,

Age 39 years, Occ. - Business,

Off. at : Near Chitra Talkies, Bharatsingh

Chowk, Pulgaon, Wardha - 442 302.

3) Hasim Mausad Ahmed,

Age about 42 years, Occ. - Business,

Off. at : 5141/3, Ward No. 3, Zanzari Complex, Nachangaon, Tahsil – Deoli,

District Wardha. …. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Shriram City Union Finance Limited

(Decree-holder), A Company incorporated

under the Companies Act, 1956,

Off. at : 4, 5 and 6 Ground Floor, Neco Chambers, Plot No. 48, Sector-11, CBD

Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614. …. RESPONDENT ______________________________________________________________

Mr. R.P. Masurkar, Advocate for the petitioners,

Mr. V.R. Shah, Advocate h/f. Mr. R.V. Shah, Advocate for the

respondent.

______________________________________________________________

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

DATE : 07-08-2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the common order dated 08-02-2023 passed below Exhibits 20 and 23 by the learned 2^nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Arbitration Darkhast No. 281/2021, thereby rejecting the applications moved by the petitioners under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, “the CPC”), to dismiss the execution petitions, have preferred this petition.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as under :

(a) Petitioner No. 1 is the proprietary firm run by Sunilkumar Prakashchandra Sahu, and Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the guarantors to the loan borrowed by Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 approached the respondent for grant of a Trade finance loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the purpose of his business expansion, which was sanctioned by the respondent on 01-04-2017. Pursuant to the sanction of the loan, petitioner No. 1 had entered into and executed the loan agreement with the respondent on the same day and petitioners No. 2 and 3 signed the said agreement as the guarantors. They had also executed a demand promissory note and other documents in favour of the respondent. After execution of the documents, the respondent disbursed the loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- in favour of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 agreed to repay the said loan amount along with monthly interest at the rate of 22.52% per annum and agreed to pay instalment of Rs. 33,590/- per month and same was payable in sixty equal instalments from 07-05-2017. Petitioner No. 1 also executed the mortgage of the house property in favour of the respondent towards the security of the loan amount.

(b) Petitioner No. 1 committed default in repayment of the instalment of the loan amount. Therefore, the respondent had issued a legal notice on 17-07-2019 and thereafter filed the dispute before the learned Arbitrator for recovery of the loan amount. It appears from the award that despite service of the notice on petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, they chose to remain absent. Therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte against them. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the evidence and material before him, passed the award holding that the petitioners are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 12,75,519/- along with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount from 10-08-2019.

(c) It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not challenged the said Award till the filing of this writ petition. Likewise, the petitioners failed to comply with the order of the learned Arbitrator; therefore, the respondent filed execution proceedings bearing Arbitration Darkhast No. 281/2021 before the executing Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioners appeared in the execution proceedings and filed an obj