Suchetan Bansal vs Indusind Bank Ltd. And Another

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The father of the petitioner on two occasions i.e. in the year 2015 and 2018 availed loan facilities for purchasing truck(s). He died on 16.08.2018 and since there was default in payment of loan, the respondents in the year 2019 took possession of the vehicles. The respondents have now called bids to sell the vehicles and have also started arbitration proceedings against the petitioner and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

"i) That clause No. 23.3 of the annexure P-1 and annexure P-2 may kindly be held illegal and Arbitration proceeding initiated against the petitioner at Chennai may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the proceeding initiated by the respondents to sell out the vehicles of the petitioner and recovery the dues of loan may kindly be quashed and set aside being in violation of principle of natural justice.

iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to accept the dues of loan and release the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner with further prayer that some time to pay entire amount may kindly be granted."

Shri Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and has assailed the lacking of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition and has further assailed the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the respondents are not a State or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

Adverting to the first contention, it would be noticed that the arbitration proceedings that have been initiated against the petitioner are in accordance with the Clause 23.3 of the agreement which reads as under:

"23.3. The venue of Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai and the language shall be in English."

The mere fact that these proceedings may be onerous or it may be difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings at Chennai cannot by itself be a ground to interfere and declare those proceedings to be illegal.

Since, the respondents have resorted to lawful proceedings by way of arbitration, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain regarding violation of principles of natural justice.

Now, that the first contention stands answered against the petitioner, we really need not to answer the second contention and the same is, therefore, left open.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application, if any.