Appeal against a trial court order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act allowing the financier to repossess a vehicle. The respondent submitted an award had since been passed, the vehicle was never recovered, and a related Section 34 appeal was pending. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:45420]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 273/2012
Ajay Kumar Luharuwala S/o Sh. Ram Ratan Lal Lahuruwala aged about 48 Years, R/o House No. B-105, Hanuman Nagar, Tulsi Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Opposite Hanuman Vatika, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Registered Office 36-38-A, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 and Branch Office D-232, First Floor, S.D.C. Tower, Near Amrpali Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory Lokesh Sharma
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naman Yadav for Mr. Pankaj Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order
04/11/2024
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JP:45420]
[CMA-273/2012]
submits that the vehicle is neither traceable nor they have recovered any possession of the vehicle.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
GAURAV /31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Section 9 order permitting repossession of the vehicle was maintainable after an arbitration award had been passed.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution given no appearance for the appellant.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Kumar Luharuwala
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
