Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Jasmeet Singh Saluja vs Citicorp Finance (India) Limited And ... on 19 September, 2018

Author: S.C.Gupte

Bench: S.C.Gupte

sg                                            1/2                                 arbp71-16.doc

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO.71 OF 2016

Jasmeet Singh Saluja                          ...               Petitioner
       Versus  
Citicorp Finance (India) Limited And Anr. ...                   Respondents
                                          .....
None for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Patil, i/b. Vivek Patil & Associates, for Respondent No.1.
                                      .....
                                  CORAM                 :  S.C.GUPTE, J.

                                     DATED                   :  19 SEPTEMBER 2018
                                     
P.C.:  

.              Heard   learned   Counsel   for   Respondent   No.1,   who   is   the

contesting party to the petition. None appears for the Petitioner.

2. The petition challenges an award passed by a sole arbitrator. The dispute between the parties arises out of a loan-cum-hypothication agreement executed between the parties. The Petitioner herein, who was the Respondent to the arbitration reference, was a principal debtor under the loan-cum-hypothication agreement. The original agreement was produced before the arbitral tribunal. The arbitrator accepted the case of the claimant (the first Respondent in this case) and awarded the claim. Practically, the only ground of challenge in the present petition is that there was no oral evidence tendered in support of the agreement and that without such evidence, the document purporting to be the original agreement was admitted on record and an award was passed thereon. This sg 2/2 arbp71-16.doc point was raised before the arbitral tribunal and has been decided in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the award. It is apparent from the statement of defence filed by the Petitioner herein before the arbitral tribunal that neither execution of the loan-cum-hypothication agreement nor the contents of the agreement were challenged before the arbitrator. It is not in dispute that the original loan-cum-hypothication agreement was produced before the arbitrator. In the premises, no fault can be found with the impugned award of the sole arbitrator within the framework of the challenge provision contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Smita       Smita Johnson
Johnson     Gonsalves
            Date: 2018.09.25
Gonsalves   11:15:31 +0530

                                                                                              (S.C.GUPTE, J.)