Item- 11. sg 16-09-2025 Ct. 1 FMAT 206 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 Shriram Finance Ltd. Versus Priyanka Pasi Mr. Saurabh Gutathakurata Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar …for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Patra (VC) Mr. Prem Prakash …for the respondent 1. In view of the fact that as on the date of possession, admittedly, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was due and payable and the appellant seems to have exercised its power under the Loan and Agreement to re-possess the vehicle on default. 2. Prima facie, we do not find any reason for the court to interfere with when admittedly there is a default. 3. However, the respondent upon paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from date, the vehicle should be returned to the plaintiff in a pliable condition and the appellant shall reschedule the instalment and shall not charge any penalty or other amount which would have been otherwise payable upon termination of the agreement. The respondent shall diligently adhere to the rescheduled EMIs. 4. The earlier order directing payment of Rs.8,00,000/- stands modified. 5. Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, allegations are deemed to have been denied. 6. In view of the fact that the appellant is going to file a re- scheduled EMIs before the learned Trial Court, there is no necessity for any fresh consideration to be filed under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The suit itself may be disposed of on the basis of the re- scheduled terms. 7. It is made clear that arbitrability of the dispute is not gone into and may not be required to be decided by the learned Trial Court in view of the proposed settlement. 8. With the above observation, the appeal and the application are accordingly, disposed of. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. [Soumen Sen, C.J. (Acting)] (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) 2