Allowed

Bhim Dutt and Anr. v. M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Jul 2026ARB.A/501/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged a District Judge's Section 9 arbitration petition decision that appointed a receiver and let the respondent seize their hypothecated vehicle without notice or hearing. The court found natural justice ignored, quashed the impugned order, ordered return of the vehicle, and remanded for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned 16.09.2025 District Judge order quashed; vehicle returned to appellants; parties remanded to District Judge, Shimla for fresh Section 9 hearing on hearing both sides.

Bhim Dutt and Anr. Vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. — Arbitration | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Arbitration Appeal No. 501 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 14.07.2026

¶4

____________________________________________________ Bhim Dutt & another ...Appellants.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Shriram Finance Ltd. ...Respondents.

¶7

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the appellants : Ms. Vandana Thakur and Ms. Narvada Kashyap, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

¶10

__________________________________________________ Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

¶11

The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., dated 16^th September, 2025, whereby application filed by the present respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came to be allowed.

¶12

The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the Court of learned District Judge on 27^th May 2025 for the grant of following reliefs:

¶13

1. To grant interim injunction order in favour of the petitioner while restraining the respondents from disposing off the hypothecated vehicle HYUNDAI EON 0.8L IRDE MT D LITE PETROL 5 SEATER, bearing No. HP-11B-

¶14

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

¶16

4492, Engine No G3HABM019915, Chassis No. MALA351ALBM028916.

¶17

2. As an interim protection measure to appoint Mr. Manoj Kumar, Branch Manager, Shriram Finance Ltd. as a Receiver of the said vehicle. Authorizing such receiver to take interim custody of vehicle (Hypothecated vehicle), till further orders of Arbitral Tribunal/sole Arbitrator and in the process of taking possession/custody, if required the receiver may be empowered to seek assistance from competent police Authority under whose jurisdiction possession of vehicle is to be taken.

¶18

3. To direct the respondents to deliver peaceful possession of the vehicle in question to the petitioner.”

¶19

The record reveals that petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be filed by the present respondent in the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla on 27^th of May 2025. On the said date, it was observed that the office had raised certain objections and time was granted to the learned counsel for the present respondent to remove the same. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 9^th of June 2025. The matter was listed before the learned District Judge on 9^th of June 2025 and it was ordered that the office objections stand removed. Thereafter, it has been ordered that the petition be registered and the matter be listed for consideration on 1^st of July 2025.

¶20

¶21

On 1^st of July 2025, time was prayed by the learned counsel for the present respondent and the same was allowed, and the case was fixed for consideration on 14^th of August 2025. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 27^th of August 2025, and finally, the impugned order came to be passed on 16^th of September 2025 in the absence of the present appellants.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the substantial rights of the present appellants have been defeated by passing of the impugned order, as neither notices were issued for the service of the present appellants, nor they were afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

¶23

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is perverse, illegal, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. She further submits that the vehicle of the present appellants has been taken over by the present respondent in pursuance to the order as passed by the learned District Judge, which, on the face of the same, is patently illegal and wrong.

¶24

This Court has perused the record and is in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the petition was preferred and filed on 27^th May 2025.

¶25

¶26

Thereafter, after removal of the objection on 9^th June 2025, the case was fixed for consideration on 1^st July 2025, and thereafter on 27^th August 2025, and finally on 16^th September 2025, the impugned order came to be passed

¶27

The learned District Judge did not give an opportunity to the present appellant to put forward their defense. Neither they were served upon, nor any opportunity of being heard was given to them, and straightaway the petition came to be allowed by appointing a receiver, and finally the file was consigned to the record room.

¶28

Certainly, in the present case, the principle of natural justice has been ignored, and without hearing the present appellants, the impugned order came to be passed at their back, which is not sustainable in any manner in the eyes of law. The impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. has been passed without issuing notice to the present appellants.

¶29

Consequently, the impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla H.P. dated 16.09.2025 deserves to be quashed and set aside by relegating

¶30

the parties to the Court of the learned District Judge, Shimla,

¶31

¶32

with a direction to decide the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the present appellants.

¶33

In view of the quashing of the impugned order, the subsequent action as taken by the respondent, whereby the vehicle of the present appellants has been taken forcibly, is held to be illegal, null and void and the respondent is directed to forthwith hand over the custody of the vehicle to the present appellants subject to final outcome of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶34

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. on 29^th of July, 2026.

¶35

All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stands disposed off.

¶36

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶37

July 14, 2026 (Nisha)

Bhim Dutt and Anr. v. M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Dutt and Anr. v. M/S Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bam Dev and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar

Sher Singh Vs Nipun Jindal and Another

Balwant Singh and Others Vs Ramesh Chand (Deceased through LRs Renu and Others)

State of Hp and Others Vs Bhagat Singh

UOI and Another Vs Sukh Ram and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs Virender Kumar and Others