Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Kumar Dubey vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Company ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Sanjiv Khanna
SLP(C) No. 26912/2019
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26912/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-08-2019
in AA No. 41/2019 passed by the High Court Of M.P Principal Seat At
Jabalpur)
RAM KUMAR DUBEY PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 05-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR
Ms. Hardeep Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Praveen K. Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Rohni Prasad Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The present petition is directed against order of the High Court impugned dated 13th August, 2019 passed in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘1996 Act’) at the instance of the petitioner holding Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.05.06 that the objections which were raised at his behest under Section 17:18:02 IST Reason:
1 SLP(C) No. 26912/2019
34 of the 1996 Act was barred by limitation and confirmed the order of the District Judge dated 12th April, 2019.
The facts that emerged from the record are that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs for purchasing a Tata Magic vehicle (commercial vehicle) from the respondent financier which was sanctioned on 22nd June, 2009. Regular monthly installments were paid during the period 2009 – 2011 and a total approx. sum of Rs.1,88,140/- was paid. But, because of a subsequent default in making payment of monthly installments the vehicle was seized by the respondent in February, 2012 and in terms of the agreement executed between the parties, arbitration proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
After appointment of a sole arbitrator, ex-parte award came to be passed on 4th April, 2014 and the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, came to be dismissed holding it to be barred by limitation by the learned District Judge by an order dated 12th April, 2019 and further appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 37(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, also came to be dismissed on the same pretext by the High Court by an order dated 13th August, 2019, the subject matter of challenge in the present petition before us.
After we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties for quite some time and taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter and other material which has been placed on record, in 2 SLP(C) No. 26912/2019 the facts of the instant case, consider it appropriate that to give a final quietus to the matter, let the petitioner may deposit a further/additional sum of Rs.50,000/- in satisfaction of the ex- parte award dated 4th April, 2014 within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the respondent will be at liberty initiate the proceedings for execution of the award dated 4th April, 2014.
The Special Leave Petition in the above terms stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
3