Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, is taken on record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandmaus commanding the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to accept the due installments and forthwith release the Power Track Model Tractor Engine No. 3381279 chassis No. T053340153 in favour of the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent which is a private sector bank, a loan was taken by the petitioner for purchasing a tractor. On account of certain financial crisis, the petitioner could not repay the installments in time as a consequence, the tractor has been re-possessed by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner submits that she is ready to pay the remaining outstanding amount in easy installments and some indulgence be shown that the aforesaid tractor may be released in his favour. Along with the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 1, 13, 380/- is due against the petitioner. From the perusal of the letter dated 13.08.2019 which has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 with the supplementary affidavit, it indicates that the loan agreement which was entered between the parties dated 31.08.2017 also had an arbitration clause. The respondent had already invoked the arbitration clause.
In view of the above, the arbitrator has also commenced the proceedings fixing the matter on 23rd September, 2019 having his seat of arbitration at Chennai. The said notice has also been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure No. SA-2.
Considering the nature of disputes, coupled with the fact that the respondents is a private Bank, a writ of mandamaus cannot be issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691 as well as Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2012 (12) SCC 331 to indicate that in terms of the Article 12 any authority which performs the public function is also amenable to the writ of mandamus.
Considering the facts relating to institutions which were involved in imparting education, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case laws have held accordingly. However, in the present case, it would be seen that the respondents are the private sector Bank and moreover, the disputes relate to private contractual obligations in between the parties which also contains an arbitration clause which has already been invoked by one of the parties.
Since these facts are not disputed, in light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no mandamus can be issued and the aforesaid writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Asheesh