Latest News

Hero Fincorp Ltd vs Poornachandiran Singaram

Hero Fincorp Ltd vs Poornachandiran Singaram[i]

Facts of the Case

the respondent approached the applicant company for a loan to purchase a car. Accordingly, the loan­ or rather ­hypothecation agreement for a loan of Rs. 5,75,000/­ was executed on 06.02.2018. The loan amount was to be returned in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 19,933/­ starting from 08.04.2018 till 08.03.2021. The respondent paid initial EMI's but started defaulting in making payment as per schedule. Accordingly, vide notice dated 06.05.2019, the loan was recalled and the respondent was directed to hand over the possession of the said vehicle. The respondent neither paid the outstanding amount due nor handed over the said vehicle. It is stated that there is an arbitration clause for dispute resolution between the parties with the provision that arbitration shall be held in New Delhi, India. Hence, the present petition has been instituted for appointing the Receiver to take possession of the vehicle as an interim measure. 

The petitioner has brought about this case under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereby to be referred to as “The Act”) and prayed for the Hon’ble Court to appoint an interim receiver for the possession of the said car and also to allow the petitioner to go ahead and sell the said car. Along with the aforesaid, the petitioner has also prayed the court to grant an interim injunction against the respondent disallowing him from bringing any third person liabilities on the said vehicle. 


The issue in front of the court is to ascertain the degree of emergent necessity is to be shown by the applicant to convince the Court to exercise its power under section 9 of the Act.

The judgment of the Court

It's not really the matter of the plaintiff nothing's been charged by the defendant following the issuing of the loans warning letter. A significant payment has also been compensated by the respondent since the loan has been informed. Therefore, the condition of Rule 39 of Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, i.e. the superficial case, an equilibrium of ease and irreversible loss if an interim remedy is not permitted, has still not been met in this situation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff has not demonstrated any emerging need for the exercise of authority by this Court of Arbitration Act, as the temporary measure requested can be found by the Learned Arbitrator according to Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. There is no provable argument since the notification of withdrawal of the loan was issued in May 2019 and the complaint was submitted on 20.10.2020 after a period of approximately 18 months. Throughout that time, the plaintiff did not take any action to begin the arbitral hearings. The petition was therefore devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed


This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. 

  • section 9
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • Hero Fincorp Ltd vs Poornachandiran Singaram

BY : Krish Jain

All Latest News