IN THE KIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 277'" DAY OF AUGUST 2010
PRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ILL. it ". ~
AND V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs'r1c1'-i=3. '&
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APi5fl.2%L Nc;.8ej4s/2o§3V.i;_AA1VV :3
BETWEEN 't tt V'
34/5. I C D S Limited,
Having its registered Office at
Syndicate House, _ V
Manipal--576 119,
Udupi District, _. .
Rep. by its GPA HoI::l'e1j'_~..V V _
SriK Baiakrishna Rap,i._ ' ' ._ '
Deputy General Mat1ege§jI,é{v.r, . _' Appellant
[By Sri T N Raghupathy', 'A{i§iA;* fef«e}5'pe1Iant)
1. SfiNBhé§ee:réfi1an' .....
Age:V.65 yea;'s, & _'
S/0 Sri _V~Na'rh3;I1»._ " _
V _ Mrs. t K 'Menakat: Priyadarshini,
'Age: (33 years, '
A _ W,/_o4 Sr: N Bhageerathan.
at
A fNath.«Bhayan,
(,7,
Qui1on~69£ 101 .
Kerala State.
3. Sn' M Tajudeen.
Age: 63 years.
S/0 K Mohammed Kunju,
Residing at Pushpa Giri. i
Kiiigallor.
Qui1on--691 004.
(Kerala State}
4. Sri Yogishwara Holla,
Advocate/Arbitrator,
Volakad, _ _
Udupi. . &_ ' ' V' Respondents
(By Sri Dayananda Kini, Adv., for
This Misce11a.rieous.Firs-t Ap-p’ea3~i:s”fi1éd under Section 37(1) of the
Arbitration and Conoi.1iation At t, t1;Q’96–. agajnist the judgment and decree
dated 7.7.2005vpaSsed’j;in A’:fCNoL.5’/ }.99’2″‘on the file of Addi. Civil Judge
(Sr. Divn.}, Udt1pi._a1lo*w.ing the’petit__ien [filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3
herein under Se’c_tion 33 o1*:1»:.e Arbitration Act.
This Appealuxcorrandg -__or1._ hearing this day. Manjunath, J.,
delivered the gfollowing: _ ” ‘
The*iega1ity’ andoorrectness of the order passed by the Addl. Civil
digudge-V(Sr. Udupi. in A C No.5/1992 dated 7″” of July 2005 is
‘by the appellant hereirr.
We-have heard the Counsel for the parties.
541/
3. The appellant, as a Financier, had given vehiele~Mercedes Benz
bearing registration No.KRU 1884 to the IS’ respondent on 166.1987
and respondent Nos.2 and 3 stodd as guarantors to
and on the same day, the 1s: respondent also purchased.
vehicle-Tata Benz lorry bearing registration tl\lo.’I-ZRQA tbyiveritelringt 7. it
into hire purchase agreement on the ground the_»_r1ASi~ respondent
failed to pay the installments as and fall due’, was
referred to an Arbitrator by nasnezpsri BY *i{{:olla:g._.’I’1riell respondents have
not entered appearance before Arbitration Case
Nos.4 and 5/1992 filed’ on V’there is no arbitration
clause and of the Arbitration Act was
not maintainable and had not agreed to refer the
matter to an Arbitrator arbitrafion clause has been interpolated
laterp. .:he.1St respondent got himself examined as
P.W.l1._a1idl’l’;eVrelied ‘up’on_ Exs.P1 to P14. On behalf of the appellant, Sri
B Rao as D.W2. He relied upon Exs.D1 to D11.
Civii Judge’?[pSr’.l:Divn.}, Udupi, having considered the case of the
.:a;Elow.edlthe Appeal of the? respondents holding that the parties
not to refer the dispute to Sri B Y Holla, an Arbitrator, and
<9
the said clause has been interpolated later and therefore allowed the
Petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is fi1ed_,_
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the C ” ff ” ‘
5. The learned Counsei for the appellant,
contends that the order passed by the jCAiyii*
erroneous and did not consider the eVidene__el*-led the it
According to him, there is no interpoiationin the arbitratjoanuclause and
that the typed portion of cIause¢zV”1(a}g.iwasiityped prior”~to.-iputting the
signatures by the parties andxhthe’ the respondents,
considering the” name of the Ieamed
Arbitrator, hadvlused Therefore, it cannot be
considered as interpolation circumstances, he requests the
Courts to . ….. 14 v
‘P:er’~contrai ‘llearned Counsel for the respondent, Sri Dayananda
into the hire purchase agreement, it is
clear to a naked” eye that the name of the Arbitrator in clause-VI(a) of
agreement dated 16.6.1987 is interpolated by using a
/’ ‘:W”Cii1f’1:fere);}.tlutypettrriter just prior to filing of the Arbitration Case and he
81/
also requests the Court to compare the typed portion of hire purchase
agreement in the first page and also the disputed portion. In the
circumstances, he contends that the trial Court is justified infézllouring
the claim of the respondents. .
7. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, the
considered is:
Whether the trial Court is justifijedi. ‘A
that the Arbitration Clause’__Clau’sesVI{a}’
hire purchase agreement K
interpolated ? V —.. ”
8. We have the’-.,dccuments. On perusal of the
documents, it is clear’ purchase agreement dated
16.6.1987 is aprinted forrn’,’1whi’chvcontains lots of blank columns. The
same t§rpedi.by different typewriters. The name of
_the Arbitrator’ in one particular typewriter and rest of
:’thAe’Veoiumns.a__of purchase agreement are typed in a different
Coiisideringgthe age of the filling up the blank columns in column
it Arbitrators name in column (2) discloses that it is in
-different typewriters and ink used for typing the name of the
is so fresh and it cannot be held that the same was found on
W
the date of agreement dated 16.6.1987. Normaiiy, it is required for both
the parties to put the signatures Whenever a document is fiL~’;ed.eup to
show that later one shall not contend that the same.’jbeen
interpolated or the said coiumn has been fi11edH__up,:.
convenience of the parties, In the eircumstancedsgwe are of thevopinion 7.
that the trial Court is justified in holding thatldname ‘~ArEaitrator
filled in the hire purchase agreement dated”t16.6L1’£187Vis.’inter;nolated.
9. In the result. this Appeai Id,
%£%f% Séflt
Judge
sag
Iudge
mgd°