You are on page 1of 8

IN THE COURT OF HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT LATUR

Misc Civil Application (RJE):/2013 IndusInd Bank Through Their GPA and legal executive, Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra, Age: - 36, Occu. - Service, R/o at: - IndusInd, Chaunda Complex, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Ausa Road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur Applicant/Petitioner VERSUS 1. Chandravardhan s/o Subhash Khandade Age: 34 years, Occu. - Agriculture and Business R/o Gangapur Tq. & Dist. Latur 2. Santosh s/o Prakashchand Toshniwal Age: - 32 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Gangapur Tq. & Dist. Latur Non-Applicant/Respondents. Claim: - Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 For the grant of interim relief

Honorable Sir, The applicant much humble submits as under:1. That, the applicant, IndusInd Bank Limited is a body corporate registered under Banking Regulation Act of 1949 having registered office at 2401, General Thaimaih road, east street cantonment, Pune, 411 001 and is carrying the business of the baking and finance under the rules framed and regulated by Reserve Bank Of India and other relevant acts. The applicant is continuing its business of hire purchase, Leasing and financing of Industrial equipment, machinery, Vehicles and other equipments under the loan agreement and leasing schemes at various branches and one of its branch is at Latur. That, the applicant has delegated the powers to legal executive of the applicant bank Rajendasinh Deelipsinh Tehra as their power of attorney and has authorized him to institute suit, file proceedings, to appoint advocates and

2.

to depose on behalf of the bank in the court of law being the office of the applicant bank. 3. That, the respondent No. 1 is the borrower under the Loan agreement No.MLL00011L dated: 30.03.2011 executed under hire purchase scheme entered between the first respondents and the applicant. The second respondent is the guarantor who has duly executed the said agreement as a guarantor securing the due repayments of all amounts jointly and severally. That, the respondent no. 1 approached the applicant requesting to finance and let on hire vehicle Eicher 11.10 HD bearing Regi. No.MH 24 J 6892 Engine No.E483CDBC526202 and chasis No.MC226HRC0BC051820 (hereinafter referred as the vehicle). The respondent no. 2 proposed to stand as guarantor to the finance. The copies of loan agreement, Invoice, Insurance policy are enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Honle court. That, as per request of the respondent no. 1 and on the guarantee of the respondent no. 2 the bank accepted the proposal of the respondents. Accordingly an agreement called loan agreement bearing No.MLL00011L dated: 30.03.2011 was executed by respondent no. 1 in favor of the applicant bank. The respondent No. 2 also executed the said agreement as as guarantor to the respondent no. 1 for the due payment of the installments amounts together with any additional finance charges and all other charges whatsoever payable by the respondent no. 1 to the applicant bank. That, the following are the details of the amount disbursed and the interest:Finance amount: Finance charges: Insurance deposit: Agreement value: Finance rate of interest: 7. 950000 237500 45000 1232500 6.25 %

4.

5.

6.

That, even after getting delivery of the vehicle and enjoying fruits of the vehicle the respondent failed to deposit the installments of finance amount as agreed by them with the applicant bank. Hence, the applicant bank has give number of intimation; informations and issued number of notices to the respondent for deposing the loan amount. However the respondents failed to deposit the same with the applicant bank even after all attempts. That, in terms of the loan agreement all the differences or the disputes or any

8.

claims arising out of the agreement shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by the applicant bank. That since the situation was getting out of hand and the respondent was avoiding meeting the applicant and their officers and as there was total breach of the agreement the arbitration proceedings is initiated at Chennai as per agreement. 09. That, the aforementioned agreement is executed at Latur, Hence honorable court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application and adjudicate the same. That cause of action to file the application is continuous. Respondents are liable to pay the interest/additional finance charges for any further delay in future as well notice was served by the applicant bank on the respondents for paying the outstanding amount which is still outstanding as per account extract and the same is informed to respondents. That, the details of the accounts shown in the ledger account is maintained by the applicant bank in due course of its business which is admissible in evidence in accordance to the Bankers Book Evidence Act. The copies of the extract are annexed with the petition. As per the said accounts on today date Rs.6,78,178 /- is due and recoverable from the respondent. The same prayed before Arbitrator. That, the respondent 1 as described runs the business and agriculturist which shows that the respondent is capable of depositing the due amount. However, there is lack of intention on the part of the respondents. It is quite likely that in order to defraud the applicant bank the respondent is likely to create third party interest in the property and on account of which it will become difficult and impossible to execute the award to be passed in near future. That, it is hereby submitted that it is necessary and in the interest of justice that temporary and ad-interim injunction in respect of property and other order as prayed herein be granted U/s 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act. If the order will not be granted the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and the same cannot be compensated by any means. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the applicant and the prima facie case is made out by the applicant bank. Hence, prayed as under

10.

11.

12.

13.

HENCE IT IS PRAYED 1. That, the respondent no. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to deposit Rs.6,78,178.00 /- or to give Bank Guarantee to the same.

2. That, property described of the respondent no. 1 & 2 as described in Para No. 5 of this application may kindly be attached. 3. That, the vehicle which was hypothecated with the applicant i.e Eicher 11.10 HD bearing Regi. No.MH 24 J 6892 Engine No.E483CDBC526202 and chasis No.MC226HRC0BC051820 be attached and same be handed over to the applicant. 4. That, any other relief to which the applicant is entitled may kindly be granted in his favour.

Date: - / 03 /2013 Through:-

Applicant

Adv. Ajay R. Renapurkar

VERIFICATION
That, I, Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra, A/a: 36 Occu.- Service, R/o. Office at Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Latur do hereby verify that the contents of the petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Hence, verified today.

Date:Place: - Latur

Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra

IN THE COURT OF HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT LATUR


Misc Civil Application (RJE):/2013

IndusInd Bank Through Their GPA and legal executive, Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra, Age: - 36, Occu. - Service, R/o at: - IndusInd, Chaunda Complex, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Ausa Road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur Applicant/Petitioner VERSUS 1. Chandravardhan s/o Subhash Khandade Age: 34 years, Occu. - Agriculture and Business R/o Gangapur Tq. & Dist. Latur 2. Santosh s/o Prakashchand Toshniwal Age: - 32 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Gangapur Tq. & Dist. Latur Non-Applicant/Respondents. Claim: - Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 For the grant of interim relief
AFFIDAVIT I, Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra, A/a 36yrs, Occu.:- Service, R/o : Indusind, Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Ausa road, Latur Tq. & Dist. Latur hereby state on oath that

1.

That, the applicant, IndusInd Bank Limited is a body corporate registered under Banking Regulation Act of 1949 having registered office at 2401, General Thaimaih road, east street cantonment, Pune, 411 001 and is carrying the business of the baking and finance under the rules framed and regulated by Reserve Bank Of India and other relevant acts. The applicant is continuing its business of hire purchase, Leasing and financing of Industrial equipment, machinery, Vehicles and other equipments under the loan agreement and leasing schemes at various branches and one of its branch is at Latur. That, the applicant has delegated the powers to legal executive of the applicant bank Rajendasinh Deelipsinh Tehra as their power of attorney and has authorized him to institute suit, file proceedings, to appoint advocates and to depose on behalf of the bank in the court of law being the office of the applicant bank.

2.

3.

That, the respondent No. 1 is the borrower under the Loan agreement No.MLL00011L dated: 30.03.2011 executed under hire purchase scheme entered between the first respondents and the applicant. The second respondent is the guarantor who has duly executed the said agreement as a guarantor securing the due repayments of all amounts jointly and severally. That, the respondent no. 1 approached the applicant requesting to finance and let on hire vehicle Eicher 11.10 HD bearing Regi. No.MH 24 J 6892 Engine No.E483CDBC526202 and chasis No.MC226HRC0BC051820 (hereinafter referred as the vehicle). The respondent no. 2 proposed to stand as guarantor to the finance. The copies of loan agreement, Invoice, Insurance policy are enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Honle court. That, as per request of the respondent no. 1 and on the guarantee of the respondent no. 2 the bank accepted the proposal of the respondents. Accordingly an agreement called loan agreement bearing No.MLL00011L dated: 30.03.2011 was executed by respondent no. 1 in favor of the applicant bank. The respondent No. 2 also executed the said agreement as as guarantor to the respondent no. 1 for the due payment of the installments amounts together with any additional finance charges and all other charges whatsoever payable by the respondent no. 1 to the applicant bank. That, the following are the details of the amount disbursed and the interest:Finance amount: Finance charges: Insurance deposit: Agreement value: Finance rate of interest: 950000 237500 45000 1232500 6.25 %

4.

5.

6.

7.

That, even after getting delivery of the vehicle and enjoying fruits of the vehicle the respondent failed to deposit the installments of finance amount as agreed by them with the applicant bank. Hence, the applicant bank has give number of intimation; informations and issued number of notices to the respondent for deposing the loan amount. However the respondents failed to deposit the same with the applicant bank even after all attempts. That, in terms of the loan agreement all the differences or the disputes or any claims arising out of the agreement shall be referred to sole arbitrator appointed by the applicant bank. That since the situation was getting out of hand and the respondent was avoiding meeting the applicant and their

8.

officers and as there was total breach of the agreement the arbitration proceedings is initiated at Chennai as per agreement. 09. That, the aforementioned agreement is executed at Latur, Hence honorable court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application and adjudicate the same. That cause of action to file the application is continuous. Respondents are liable to pay the interest/additional finance charges for any further delay in future as well notice was served by the applicant bank on the respondents for paying the outstanding amount which is still outstanding as per account extract and the same is informed to respondents. That, the details of the accounts shown in the ledger account is maintained by the applicant bank in due course of its business which is admissible in evidence in accordance to the Bankers Book Evidence Act. The copies of the extract are annexed with the petition. As per the said accounts on today date Rs.6,78,178 /- is due and recoverable from the respondent. The same prayed before Arbitrator. That, the respondent 1 as described runs the business and agriculturist which shows that the respondent is capable of depositing the due amount. However, there is lack of intention on the part of the respondents. It is quite likely that in order to defraud the applicant bank the respondent is likely to create third party interest in the property and on account of which it will become difficult and impossible to execute the award to be passed in near future. That, it is hereby submitted that it is necessary and in the interest of justice that temporary and ad-interim injunction in respect of property and other order as prayed herein be granted U/s 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act. If the order will not be granted the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and the same cannot be compensated by any means. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the applicant and the prima facie case is made out by the applicant bank. Hence this Affidavit Date: Deponent

10.

11.

12.

13.

VERIFICATION
That, I, Rajendrasinh Deelipsinh Tehra, A/a: 36Occu.- Service, R/o. Office at Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Latur do hereby state on oath that the contents of the affidavit are read over to me and explained to me in marathi which are found

true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Hence, verified today.

Identified & Explained

Deponent