ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) This is an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016 (in short "the Act of 1996"). From the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the respondents have received copies of the application forwarded to them. Let the copies of the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record. However, none appears on behalf of he respondents to oppose this application. Accordingly, this application is taken up for hearing in the absence of the respondents.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreement dated June 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said agreement") the respondent no.1 obtained a loan of Rs.27,02,500/- for acquiring the asset mentioned in Annexure-"B" to the application. The said asset remains hypothecated in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.2, as the guarantor, is a party to the said agreement, which contains an arbitration clause. Under the said agreement, the respondent no.1 was obliged to repay the amount financed by the petitioner together with the agreed rate of interest and other charges by way of 56 monthly instalments of variable amounts, but after paying the first 33 instalments and part of the 34th instalment, he failed to pay the balance instalments. In spite of being called upon by the petitioner, the respondents failed to repay the dues of the petitioner or to make over possession of the hypothecated asset to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner terminated the said agreement and filed this application to enforce its rights against the hypothecated asset presently lying at Mothabari, Malda, in the state of West Bengal.
(3.) According to the petitioner, as on the date of filing of this application, there remains an amount of Rs.10,00,143/- due and owing by the respondents to the petitioner. Considering the materials on record, I find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioner for obtaining an order for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecated asset.;