IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
O.S.A.No.31 of 2010
K.Rose .. Appellant
Vs
1. M/s. UTI Bank Ltd.,
represented by its Authorised
Signatory Mr.A.Vasantharaghavan
registered office at "Sakar'
Ground Floor, Ahsram Road,
Near Gandhigram Station,
Ahmedabad 380 009.
2. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
(M/s.Shriram Investments Limited
merged with M/s. Shriram Transport
Finance Company Limited by order of
the High Court, Chennai dated 25-11-2005)
rep. By its Authorised signatory
Mr.S.Varadhan, registered office
at No.123, Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai 600 001.
3. D.Veeramani,
No.68/2, Alapakkam Perumal Koil Street,
Chennai 600 016. ..Respondents.
The appeal has been preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the orders passed in O.P.No.338 of 2008 dated 2.4.2009 by the learned single Judge of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Venkateswaran
J U D G M E N T
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This intra-court appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing an application whereby the arbitration award was sought to be set aside.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal at the stage of admission can be stated as follows:
4. There was a tripartite agreement between the appellant/ borrower and the respondents 1 and 2/lenders on 19.12.2003 for a loan to the value of Rs.8,30,035/-. It was agreed that the amount must be paid in 45 monthly instalments commencing from 19.1.2004. According to the respondents, the payment was made only for 13 months and so far as the 14th month instalment was concerned, a sum of Rs.7,351/- was paid and the remaining of that instalment and the other instalments were not paid. The matter was referred to arbitration. The appellant appeared before the Arbitrator and participated in the proceedings and the award came to be passed which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge.
5. The appellant, as raised before this Court, raised two contentions before the learned single Judge viz., (i) before appointing the Artibrator, no notice was issued to him and (ii) the vehicle was actually sold and the entire amount was adjusted and there is no need for any arbitration at all. Under such circumstances, once the question of jurisdiction raised before him was not considered, the award has got to be set aside.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after looking into the materials available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case even for admission and the order of the learned single Judge is not to be disturbed either factually or legally.
7. Admittedly, there was a tripartite agreement. As per the agreement, the first and second respondent lent money mentioned above which was payable by the appellant within 45 monthly instalments. According to the respondents, the amount was paid only for 13 instalments, and Rs.7,351/- was paid for the 14th instalment and the remaining amount has not been paid. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was sold and the sale price was appropriated. According to the respondents, since the remaining amount was not yet paid, the matter was subjected to arbitration proceedings.
8. As could be seen from the agreement, there is a specific clause that whenever any dispute arises between the parties viz., lender and the borrower, the matter has got to be referred to arbitration. Hence, the matter was referred to arbitration which is perfectly correct. So far as the contention that no notice was issued before the arbitration is concerned, having participated in the proceedings, now the appellant raising such a point as to the appointment of arbitrator, does not arise. Insofar as the jurisdiction was concerned, in the instant case, there is a specific claim that rest of the amount was to be paid. According to the respondents, the contention that the vehicle was sold and the amount has been fully adjusted was not correct. Under such circumstances, no question of jurisdiction of the arbitration would arise. The Arbitrator so appointed, on evidence, has taken a view and has passed the award under challenge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is perfectly correct. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(M.C.,J.) (T.R.,J.) 02.02.2010 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsi M.CHOCKALINGAM,J. and T.RAJA.,J. Vsi O.S.A.No.31 of 2010 02.02.2010