IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE: DATED THIS THE 28™ DAY OF JANUARY 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K, SHAKTHAVATSALA WRIT PETITION NO.2334/2010 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN Rukmini Jadav, W/o Ganesh Jadav, Age: 41 years, No.4, 2°¢ Cross, Opposite to City tower Hotel, 1 floor, Dispensary Road. kalasipalyam, Bangalore-560 002. Petitioner (By Sri Adinarayan. Adv. for M/s, ANN Associates, for for petitioner] AND 1. Parasmal Bothra financiers and Authorised Franchisees of ‘STFC’ Lid., No.13, Ayya Mudait Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. 2. Srirani Transport Finance co. Ltd., No.4, Lady Desikar Road, Mcokambika complex, 3° Nor, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. RespondentsThis Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. CCH No.22, in O S No.25915/2008 vide Annexure-A allowing LA.2 filed by the respondents under Section 8(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. ‘This Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: CRDER ‘The petitioner/piaintiff in O S No.25915/2008 on the file of XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is before this Court, praying for various reliefs. 2. A memo came to be filed pressing the relief only in respect of the impugned order passed on LAI and giving up other reliefs sought for. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ Petition may be stated as under: i {Ratsaeee‘The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from seizing motor vehicle bearing No.KA 19 AA 3799. The petitioner obtained ad-interim ex-parte T I restraining the defendants from scizing the: vehicle without due process of law. After the defendants entered appearance in the suit, he filed LA.I under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contending that in the loan agreement dated 13.10.2007, there existed an arbitration clause. The plaintiff filed an application (LA.1I) under Order XXXIX Rule 2-4 of C P C on the ground that in spite of the ad-interim T i granted in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants have seized the motor vehicle, and thereby committed disobedience of the order of T I, and therefore contempt proceedings shall be initiated. Since the vehicle was seized by the defendants, the plaintiff filed LA.IV for restoration of the motor vehivle. ‘The. application for restoration was rejected by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on LA.IV, the plaintiff approached this Court in MFA No.3261/2009. Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Appeal and directed the defendants to deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff within a week from the date of order, in accordance with law. The vehicle was re-delivered to the plaintiff. 1.A.V was filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 lee