Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

K.Alfred vs Ramesh Iyer on 17 September, 2019

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

                                                                                                       1

     ITEM NO.1                                  COURT NO.7                         SECTION II-C

                                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F               I N D I A
                                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4417/2019

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-02-2019
     in CONTP No.235/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
     Madras)

     K. ALFRED                                                                         Petitioner(s)

                                                           VERSUS

     RAMESH IYER & ORS.                                                              Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION; and, IA No.76490/2019 – FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAR
     AND ARGUE IN PERSON)

     Date : 17-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN


     For Petitioner(s)                    Petitioner-in-person

     For Respondent(s)


                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                  O R D E R

According to the petitioner:

1. He had purchased a Maruti Omni Vehicle with the financial assistance given by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, having their office at Tirupathi House, New No.13, Kanniah Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu (“the Company” Signature Not Verified for short).

MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.09.19 14:28:10 IST Reason:  2

2. The price of the Vehicle was Rs.2,34,000/- out of which he had paid major share amounting to Rs.1,83,000/- and the rest of the money was arranged through the accommodation given by the Company.

3. After he had paid first four instalments, the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the Company and after various rounds of litigation, by virtue of order dated 03.12.2017 passed by the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai (Annexure P-3), the custody of the vehicle was restored to him.

4. In all, he paid seven instalments and the balance that was required to be paid was in the region of Rs.28,000/-.

5. The order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in Consumer Complaints No.96 of 2010 and 114 of 2012, observed that the petitioner need not pay the balance EMIs and a direction was issued to the Company to issue “No Objection Certificate” in respect of the vehicle in question.  3

6. However, No Objection Certificate has not yet been given by the Company.

7. But the arbitration proceedings at the instance of the Company were initiated in which an ex parte award was passed on 05.05.2014 wherein the sole Arbitrator directed as under:

“10. After due consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, the Tribunal passes the following order:

    a.     The claim petition is allowed.

    b.     The Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay to the
           claimant:

           i)     Sum of Rs.78219/- together with interest            at the
                  rate of 3% per month, from 28.11.2009 till         date of
                  this award; and with further interest at           18% per
                  annum from the date of this award till the         date of
                  payment;

           ii)    a sum of Rs.10000/- towards costs of the arbitral
                  proceedings.

iii) The claimant is also directed to adjust the sale proceeds of the seized asset based on the interim order passed by the tribunal which is made absolute by this award.

iv) The claimant is also directed to adjust any other amount received during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings from the award amount.” The aforesaid award was sought to be put in execution by the Company by filing E.P. No.245/2017, and the City Civil Court at Chennai, by its order dated 19.09.2017 allowed said Execution Petition and ordered attachment and sale of moveable properties belonging to the petitioner as set out in the Schedule appended to the Execution Petition.

The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Contempt Petition No.235 of 2019, which having been dismissed by the High Court, the petitioner has now approached this Court. What emerges is:

a) The balance which the petitioner was required to pay to the Company was Rs.28,000/-;

b) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chennai had observed that the petitioner need not pay the balance EMIs and further directed the Company to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle; and

c) The awarded sum in arbitration carries interest @ 3% per month, which rate is not quite consistent with rates at which interest is normally awarded.

We, therefore, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18.11.2019.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. In the meantime, there shall be stay of operation of order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the City Civil Court at Chennai in E.P. No.245/2017.

     (MUKESH NASA)                               (SUMAN JAIN)
     COURT MASTER                               BRANCH OFFICER