SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1564/2008
IndusInd Bank Ltd Vs. Kiranjeet Singh
1
SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1564/2008
IndusInd Bank Ltd Vs. Kiranjeet Singh
DATE OF ORDER : - 18.12.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Dr. SS Jodha, for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant-financier is aggrieved against the order
dated 16th September, 2008 passed by the court of Addl.
District Judge No.3, Udaipur on application submitted by the
respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
It appears from the facts of the case that according to
the respondent-applicant before the trial court total due
amount of the appellant-non-applicant was Rs.44,122/-,
which he was ready to pay to the appellant. He prayed that
on his payment of said amount, the appellant should issue
NOC. The appellant submitted reply and stated that as per
the statement of accounts as on 16th September, 2008, the
total due amount was Rs.55,872.41/-. So far as settlement
SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1564/2008
IndusInd Bank Ltd Vs. Kiranjeet Singh
2
of dispute through arbitration is concerned, with respect to
the total amount of Rs.11,000/- and odd, the parties were
in agreement for referring the matter to the arbitrator.
However, the trial court after hearing the arguments held
that since the dispute with respect to the petty amount of
Rs.11,000/- and odd will remain and that can be
adjudicated by the arbitrator then there is no reason to
deny the prayer of the respondent, who prayed that he is
ready to deposit the due amount, which according to him is
due and that too, of Rs.44,122/-. In that situation, if the
substantial part of the claim of the appellant stands
satisfied and, there remains a dispute of Rs.11,000/- and
odd only, there cannot be any justification for not issuing
NOC to the respondents by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant’s contention is that
there is no need to issue NOC because of the reason that
there will be due amount as per the claim of the appellant
against the respondent and by issuing NOC, their rights
may be prejudiced.
The apprehension of the appellant is having no legal
SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1564/2008
IndusInd Bank Ltd Vs. Kiranjeet Singh
3
foundation because of the reason that they already raised
their claim and brought to the notice of the trial court and
they are not issuing the NOC voluntarily, but under the
order of the trial court. Therefore, that issuance of NOC is
under protest and cannot be said to be issued for
settlement of entire claim of the appellant.
Otherwise also, the vehicle in question is in possession
of the applicant and he is paying the substantial amount
then the appellant can certainly mentioned this fact on NOC
that the NOC is issued in pursuance of the court’s order
dated 16th September, 2008.
In view of the above reason this court do not find any
reason to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, the
appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-