arbp1278-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1278 OF 2010 Ambika Prasad Jaiswal .. Petitioner Versus Citi Corp. Finance (India) Ltd .. Respondent Mr.A.D.Bharat Komar i/by D.A.Barot for the petitioner. Ms.S.I.Joshi i/by S.I.Joshi & Co for the respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. . This petition was placed before the learned single Judge of this Court on 20th September 2010 and a detailed order has been made appointing the Court Receiver. 2 Both sides have not disputed that the petition can be made absolute in terms of this order. arbp1278-10.doc 2 3 However, Ms.Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner has deposited certain sums with the Court Receiver and the respondent should be allowed to withdraw the same as they constitute the dues of the respondent-finance company. After some arguments, both sides agree that the respondent can withdraw the amount lying with the Court Receiver with accrued interest. In such circumstances, the Court Receiver to permit the respondent to withdraw the sums deposited till date by the petitioner with accrued interest on production of an authenticated copy of this order. 4 The petitioner’s advocate, however, states that the Receiver is demanding security and that is not permissible in terms of the order. On the other hand Ms.Joshi submits that what the Receiver is demanding is a sum equivalent to three months royalty as an advance and that does not constitute security because the security is vehicle itself. Therefore, there is a default committed in giving this advance amount and that is the reason why the Receiver is seeking to repossess the vehicle. arbp1278-10.doc 3 5 The petitioner states that if it is clarified that the amount does not constitute a security, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the sum constituting the advance but some time be given to him as he has applied for re-finance from some other agency. 6 After hearing both sides I am of the view that the petition can be disposed off in terms of the order dated 20th September 2010. The order does not demand any security from the petitioner and therefore, there is no question of the Receiver insisting on payment of such security or furnishing it otherwise. The demand of the Receiver towards advance of three months royalty cannot be termed as security. However, the petitioner is given two months time to pay the said sum and for a period of two months from today, the Receiver not to take steps to repossess the said vehicle. The petitioner must however, pay the monthly royalty amount as determined by the Court Receiver and should there be any default in the same, the Court Receiver can take steps to repossess the vehicle. However, the respondent can withdraw the sum as permitted above arbp1278-10.doc 4 with accrued interest on production of an authenticated copy of this order. Withdrawal is permitted of the sum deposited till date and which shall be deposited hereafter so as to satisfy the dues of the respondent-finance company against the petitioner. The petition is disposed off in these terms. The Receiver not to take any steps to repossess the vehicle as directed above for a period of two months from today. This concession is granted because it is stated by the petitioner’s advocate that the petitioner himself is plying the vehicle. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)