A Quick Look: Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited took Inderjeet Sahni and others to court over a loan dispute. They wanted someone neutral to help settle things and asked for some temporary measures. The Bombay High Court has now made its decision.
Back in November 2019, Tata Capital lent ₹2.24 crore to Inderjeet Sahni and others, using land in Raipur, Chhattisgarh as security. Things got complicated when the borrowers couldn't keep up with payments, and by February 2023, the loan was labeled as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
Tata Capital wanted the court to: - Appoint someone neutral to help sort out the issue. - Stop the borrowers from selling or changing the property. - Clearly mark the property because it was mixed with other lands.
Judge Sandeep V. Marne decided that having someone neutral help was the best option. He pointed out that: - The part of the loan agreement that talked about arbitration was valid. - Tata Capital could choose Mumbai as the place for arbitration, giving the Bombay High Court the authority to decide.
The court agreed to some temporary measures: - The borrowers can't sell or change the property. - A court-appointed person will help mark out the property so Tata Capital can take control.
Tata Capital's Side: They argued that arbitration was part of the loan deal, and they needed the court's help because the property wasn't clearly marked.
Sahni's Side: They claimed the court didn't have the authority and that the arbitration clause wasn't properly used. They also said the case was too old to be valid.
This decision helps Tata Capital move forward with arbitration, potentially resolving the loan issue outside of traditional court proceedings.
