- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-non applicant under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") challenging the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the court below") in Arbitration Application No.682/2009, by which the court below has allowed the said application of the respondent-applicant filed under Section 9 of the said Act.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the appellant had availed of the financial facilities to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent-bank with regard to the truck bearing registration No.RJ-01-4901 on 20.05.2004 after executing an agreement. Thereafter, certain disputes having arisen between the parties with regard to the payment of installments, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the said Act seeking possession of the truck in question and for the appointment of receiver. The court below passed an order dated 07.12.2009 appointing the authorized representative of the respondent as the temporary receiver and permitted the respondent to take possession of the truck in question. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court by filing Civil Misc. Appeal No.2974/2010. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court vide the order dated 23.07.2012 and the case was remanded to the court below for deciding the application under Section 9 afresh after hearing the appellant. The court below after hearing the appellant passed the impugned order confirming the earlier order passed by it.
(3.) The learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mishra appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent had taken away the possession of the vehicle in question on 07.02.2010 under the guise of the ex-parte order dated 07.12.2009 passed by the court below and since then the vehicle is in possession of the receiver, however the respondent is not making adjustments of the amount received by the receiver by plying the vehicle in question against dues of the appellant. According to him, the Arbitrator has also passed the award, which is under challenge before the court below, however the appellant should be restored the possession of the truck in question in the interest of Justice.;