Madras High Court
S. Chandrasekar vs M/S Sriram Transport Finance on 23 December, 2020
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
CMA.No.1919 of 2020
S. Chandrasekar
... Appellant
Vs
M/S Sriram Transport Finance
Company Limited, Namakkal,
Represented by authorized
representative
Mr. V. Kumar,
First Floor Navanithi Towers,
78/1, CSM Complex First Floor Pon Nagar,
Salem Main Road, Namakkal 637 001.
... Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 37(1) and (2) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act 1996 praying to call for the records pertaining to
the fair and decreetal order in A.O.P.No.12/2011 and dated
14.06.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge,
Namakkal in confirming the Award dated 09.12.2010 in Arbitration
Case No.23/2010 and set aside the same as arbitrary, unsustainable in
law and on facts.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
For Appellant : Mr. AR M. Arunachalam
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal dismissing the petition filed by the appellant in Arb O.P.No. 12 of 2011.
2. The facts in brief, necessary for disposing of the Appeal, are as follows:
The appellant herein had borrowed money from the respondent for purchasing a vehicle. The total agreed value was a sum of Rs. 13,32,200/- which was repayable in 48 monthly instalments. According to the respondent, the second-respondent in the claim petition, had executed the agreement as a guarantor. Since the appellant was in default, the respondents exercised their right under the agreement and had taken 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ possession of the vehicle on 13.03.2009 and sold the same for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- which, according to the respondent, was the best market value available then. For the balance amount of Rs. 7,48,104/-, the respondent had invoked the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement. The appellant herein on receiving the said notice invoking the Arbitration clause had responded stating that he was not agreeable to give his consent for the Arbitrator nominated by the claimant. Despite the above, the respondent had proceeded with the arbitration proceedings and the Arbitrator had issued notice to the appellant herein on 03.08.2010 calling upon him to appear on 20.08.2010. The first respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein, who received the notice, did not appear before the Arbitrator. The notice which was issued to the second respondent in the claim petition was returned unserved and therefore the respondent had given up their claim against the said second respondent. Ultimately, an Award came to be passed directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,73,932/- with 18 per cent interest per annum. This Award was challenged by the appellant by filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.
3. The main ground of appeal was that despite the appellant challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator and making serious allegations against him, the respondent had proceeded further with the Arbitral proceedings. Therefore the Award passed by the Arbitrator had to necessarily be set aside. The next ground of attack was that the respondent had seized the vehicle and sold it within months of the loan being extended and that too for a small sum.
4. The learned Principal District Judge after hearing the parties had proceeded to dismiss the said Appeal stating that the Arbitrator had complied with all the requirements as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and further the challenge to the sale is purely a matter on the merits of the case and would not come within the ambit as specified under Section 34 of the Act. This order is subject matter of challenge in the Appeal.
4/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. The very same arguments as in the grounds have been put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no explanation on the side of the appellant why he had not entered appearance before the Arbitrator and taken such steps as required to terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator and seek for appointment of another Arbitrator. The appellant had categorically admitted the receipt of the notice.
6. In these circumstances, there is no ground made out by the appellant for setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal dismissing the Section 34 application.
7. In these circumstances, the Appeal stands dismissed. However there shall be no order to costs.
23.12.2020 mrn Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ P.T.ASHA, J.
mrn To, M/S Sriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Namakkal, Represented by authorized representative Mr. V. Kumar, First Floor Navanithi Towers, 78/1, CSM Complex First Floor Pon Nagar, Salem Main Road, Namakkal 637 001.
CMA.No.1919 of 202023.12.2020 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/