IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.540/2025

Date of Decision: 02nd December, 2025.

Veena Thakur .....Petitioner P

Versus

Srei Equipment Finance Limited and Anr. ...Responden

ts

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Adfvocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate, for

respondent No.2.

Respondent No.1 is proceeded against ex

parte.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The present petition has been preferred against the

order dated 09.05.2025, passed in Case No.14/2018, titled Srei Equipment Finance Limited Vs. Veena Thakur, pending consider ation before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Solan, whereby warrant of attachment has been issued against the property of the present petitioner being

ijudgment debtor No.1 in the decree sought to be executed by

present respondent No.1/decree holder.

2. In pursuance to the aforesaid impugned order, report of the Collector qua warrant of attachment in the execution petition was received before the Executing Court on 28.06.2025. The same was put up for consideration on 14.07.2025. On 14.07.2025, as per the report of the Tehsildar, Solan, property of present respondent No.2/JD No.2 before the Executing Court was stated to have been attached. In the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, a warrant of attachment was also issued against the property of the petitioner/JD No.1. The same was made returnable for

06.09.2025. In the aforesaid backdrop, not only .has the challenge been laid to the impugned order, but a challenge has also been laid to the execution petition itself.

3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition.

4. The present petitioner had entered into a loan-cum- hypothecation agreement dated 22.09.2006 with present respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 had stood guarantee on behalf of the present petitioner. The total amount lent by present respondent No.1 to the present petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement was worth Rs.18,28,750/-. The amount was to be repaid in 35 monthly instalments of iRs.52,250/-. The amount has been lent to the present petitioner by respondent No.1 for the purchase of an Excavator Loader along with all its accessories.

5. The contract inter se the parties is stated to have been terminated vide letter dated 07.09.2011 and immediately thereafter, one Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1(claimant) had requested the Arbitrator in the case at hand one Sh. Pulin Behari Das to enter upon the reference for adjudication of disputes that had arisen between present respondent No.1 and the present petitioner. The Arbitrator had been appointed in pursuance to Clause 22, as contained in the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 22.09.2006 entered inter se the present petitioner and respondent No.1.

6. The award in the case at hand was passed. by the learned Arbitrator on 29.02.2012. Execution proceedings in furtherance of the award so passed were in itiated. Precepts were issued by the High Court at Calcutta under the provision of Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to execution of the Award dated 29.02.2012. In pursuance to order dated 21.11.2017, passed by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, certificate qua non- satisfaction of the award and percept along with the certified copy of the award passed by the Arbitrator in the case at hand were for warded to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Solan, HP.

7. In the execution proceedings so forwarded to the iDistrict and Sessions Judge, Solan, present respondent No.2 had filed objections. One objection, which had been raised by present respondent No.2/objector pertained to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by respondent No.1(Claimant), who it was alleged had an interest in the o