facility. The other Respondents herein were guarantors for the facility. All vehicles were hypothecated in favour of the Petitioner. Fifteen of these car loan accounts were duly settled by the Respondents on or about 31 August 2012. The remaining twenty nine accounts, however, remained outstanding. There were defaults committed by the Respondents in repayment in these accounts. Since the loan agreements contained an arbitration clause, the Petitioner approached this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by different petitions for protective reliefs in respect of the vehicles, which were the subject matter of the loan agreements. At the hearing of these petitions, this Court passed the subject ad-interim order of 7 May 2013. By this order, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as an adinterim receiver in respect of the vehicles described in prayer clause (a) of the petitions. This Court also restrained the Respondents from alienating, transferring or creating any third party rights in respect of the vehicles, being the subject matters of the arbitration petition. The adinterim order was challenged by the Respondents by separate arbitration appeals. The appeals were dismissed vide order dated 22 May 2013. In the meantime, further arbitration petitions were filed by the Petitioner in respect of some other vehicles, forming the subject matter of some other car loan defaults. During the pendency of all these petitions, i.e. arbitration petitions in which the ad-interim order of 7 May 2013 was passed and further arbitration petitions in respect of other defaults, the parties agreed to consent terms. These consent terms, dated 7 August 2013, were filed on the same day before this Court and final orders disposing of the arbitration petitions were obtained by the parties. In terms of these consent terms, which were taken on record in terms of the
