12.09.2025 Item No.02 Court No.37. S. De 266311 F.M.A.T. (ARBAWARD) 369 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN/1/2025 I.A. No. CAN/2/2025 Kakali Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Corporation Limited. Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya, …for the appellants. Mr. Ranjit Singh, Mr. Ratul Deb Banerjee, …for the respondent. Dictated by Om Narayan Ray, J. In re : I.A. No. CAN/1/2025 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is condoned. 2. I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. In re : F.M.A.T. (ARBAWARD) 369 of 2025 & I.A. No. CAN/2/2025 3. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected application are taken up for hearing together. 4. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 laying challenge to an order dated June 11, 2025, passed in Misc. Case No. 6803 of 2025 by the 2 learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. 5. The facts of the case as are apparent from the material on record are that the appellants have availed of a loan facility for a principal sum of Rs.9,05,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Five Thousand Two Hundred) from the respondent for purchasing one vehicle (BOLERO, PICKUP XL 1.3 TON) which is to remain hypothecated to the respondent as security for the loan. The said loan was to be paid off in 71 equated monthly installments at Rs. 18,548/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight) as indicated in the agreement entered into by and between the parties. 6. Upon the appellants defaulting in repayment of the instalments that had fallen due, the respondent issued a demand/recall notice thereby recalling the loan and calling upon the appellants to pay the entire outstanding amount. The appellants failed to honour the demand made by the respondent. The respondent, therefore, approached the learned City Civil Court, Calcutta, by way of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for interim orders for protection of the vehicle that was 3 purchased by the appellants (using the loan facility availed of by the appellants from the respondent) and which was hypothecated to the respondent. 7. The said application was pressed ex parte at the ad interim stage. The learned Court upon being satisfied that the respondent had made out a case for passing interim order in its favour on its said application under Section 9 has directed follows : “…that Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh (Enrollment No.-F/1154/2007. PH:9903080377), Ld. Advocate is hereby appointed as Receiver with a direction to take possession of the vehicle (BOLERO, PICKUP XL 1.3TON)being Registration No. WB-25- L-3885, Engine No.TNN1K11480 and Chasis No. MA1ZU2TNKN1K91059 and to keep the same in his custody till further order and he shall take all measures for protection of the property, while it will be in his custody. He is given liberty to appoint any agent on his behalf for taking possession of the subject vehicle. The Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station is requested to render all assistance to the Receiver on production of the Court’s Order. 4 The petitioner is directed to pay a remuneration of Rs.6,000/- to render all assistance to the Receiver on production of the Court’s Order. The petitioner is directed to pay a remuneration of Rs.6,000/- to the Receiver with a liberty to claim further costs. If any, incurred by him for implementation of the order on submission of proper bill. The order shall be in force till the matter is referred to the arbitration by the petitioner or an expiry of 90 days in terms of Section 9(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, whichever is earlier. To 25.09.2025 for submission of report by the Ld. Receiver D/C by me.” 8. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 9. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the order impugned has no leg to stand inasmuch as the same is bereft of reasons. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 11. The order impugned, does not appear to be one bereft of reasons. The learned Court has passed the same upon being satisfied with the 5 pleadings in the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent. It is not in dispute even before us that the appellants have indeed defaulted in repayment of the loan that he has been availed of from the respondent. 12. It is settled that if a challenge is thrown to an ex parte ad interim order of injunction the appellants have to confine to the pleadings and the documents that were on the record before the Court which passed the ex parte ad interim order of injunction. The appellate Court is unable to take cognizance of any new document or any new case that can be set up or be made out before it. From the gist of the pleadings made in the Section 9 application, as recorded in the order impugned, we do not find that there is any infirmity therein. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere. 13. The appellants shall be at liberty to approach the learned Court by way of an appropriate application seeking vacation of the order dated June 11, 2025. We make it clear that in case the appellants pay off the installments that have fallen out as on date, the receiver shall return physical possession of the vehicle to the appellants and shall remain in 6 symbolic possession thereof. It is clarified that such physical possession of the vehicle by the receiver shall be returned to the appellants only upon the payment of the installments that have fallen due as on date. 14. However, the appellants in such a case, shall remain injuncted from dealing with, alienating or creating any third party interest in the said vehicle till such time that the Section 9 application is disposed of by the learned Court. 15. It is further clarified that all observations made in this order are prima facie and only for the purpose of deciding this appeal. The learned Trial Court shall decide the Section 9 application in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order. It will be open to the parties to make further appropriate prayers before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court observing the principles of natural justice. 16. FMAT (ARBAWARD) 369 of 2025 thus, stands disposed of along with the application being CAN 2 of 2025. (Om Narayan Rai, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)