Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurmeet Singh vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 31 October, 2019
In the Court of Sh. Narinder Kumar
Additional District Judge04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
ARBTN No. 25/2017
Sh. Gurmeet Singh
S/o Late S. Harsharan Singh
R/o 69/1, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi 110 015. ... Petitioner / Objector
versus
1. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Through its Manager/Chairman/Officer concerned
2nd Floor, Express Building,
Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg,
I.T.O., New Delhi 110 002
Second Address:
HDFC Bank Ltd., Rajouri Garden Branch,
New Delhi 110 027
2. Shri M.S. Sabharwal (Sole Arbitrator)
481, Basement, Civil Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 110 054
... Respondents
Date of filing Petition : 28.02.2017
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2019
JUDGMENT
This order shall dispose off the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award ARBTN No. 25/2017 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page No.1 of 5 dated 31.01.2017 passed in the claim instituted by HDFC Bank Ltd. against the father of applicantHarsharan Singh.
2. In brief, the case of the claimantrespondent, as per claim put forth before the Learned Arbitrator was that a business loan agreement of Rs.7,00,000/ was executed between Harsharan Singh and the said claimant on 12.04.2016 and loan was disbursed to him; that Sh Harasharan Singh committed breach in payment of installments on various dates and as such the loan agreement dated 12.04.2016 was recalled vide legal notice dated 26.09.2016; that despite the receipt of the legal notice, respondent Harsharan Singh failed to discharge the liability.
3. Arguments heard. File perused.
4. Learned counsel for objector contended that this is a case where Award has been passed against a dead person which is a nullity and as such, Award deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to two decisions in Pratap Chand Mehta v. Smt. Krishna Devi Mehta (deceased by L.Rs), AIR 1988 Delhi 267 & C. Muttu v. Bharath Match Works, Sivakasi, AIR 1984 Mysore 293.
On the other hand, counsel for claimant submitted that neither claimant nor the Arbitrator knew about the factum of death of Harsharan Singh and further that this being case of business loan, this objection petition filed by one of the sons of deceased Harsharan Singh ARBTN No. 25/2017 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page No.2 of 5 deserves to be dismissed.
5. In this objection petition, objector has filed copy of death certificate of his father and three postal receipts in proof of issuance of notice to the Arbitrator and to the claimant in proof of the factum that they were apprised by way of notice about the factum of death of Harsharan Singh on 24.05.2016.
6. In the course of arguments, the genuineness of death certificate dated 23.06.2016 has not been disputed. As per this death certificate, Harsharan Singh s/o S. Mohinder Singh r/o 69/1, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, left this world on 24.05.2016 at Doctor Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. From the death certificate, it stands proved that Harsharan Singh left this world on 24.05.2016.
As per proceedings conducted by Arbitrator, vide letter dated 08.10.2016, he was nominated as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute on 07.11.2016, whereupon, he directed for issuance of notice to both the parties for their appearance for 07.11.2016. On 07.11.2016, Arbitrator entered into reference on the arbitration matter and observed that despite service of notice, there was nonappearance on behalf of Harsharan Singh. However, once again notice was ordered to be issued to Harsharan Singh for 05.12.2016. Taking into consideration that there was nonappearance on behalf of Harsharan Singh despite dispatch of notice by speed post, Arbitrator decided to proceed against Harsharan Singh as exparte and matter was posted for exparte evidence. Ultimately, vide order dated 31.01.2017, the claim was ARBTN No. 25/2017 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page No.3 of 5 disposed of and its copy was sent to Harsharan Singh vide postal receipt dated 06.02.2017.
7. Learned counsel for claimant pointed out to two postal receipts available at page no.20 & 23 of the arbitration proceedings accompanied by respective track report available at page no.21 & 24 prove delivery of notices issued by Arbitrator.
First postal receipt is dated 14.10.2016 and other postal receipt is dated 10.11.2016. As per track reports, both items came to be delivered at the given address.
It may be mentioned herein that these postal receipt do not bear complete address of Harsharan Singh. In first mentioned postal receipt, pin code is 110051 whereas, in the other postal receipt, pin code is 110015. Surprisingly, postal receipt available at page no.17 regarding delivery of copy of Award, pin code of the address of Harsharan Singh stands typed as 110086.
Counsel for claimant submits that even if the pin code in the postal receipt has not been correctly depicted, in view of track report, it cannot be said that postal items were not delivered at the given address.
This court is not satisfied with this contention, particularly, when complete particulars of the addressee do not find mentioned in any of the three postal receipts.
8. Be that as it may, this is case where Harsharan Singh had left this world on 24.05.2016 and the Arbitrator received the claim on 08.10.2016 and ordered for issuance of notice, and as such, Harsharan ARBTN No. 25/2017 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page No.4 of 5 Singh has left this world even prior to the entertaining of the claim by learned Arbitrator.
9. Objector has filed on record three postal receipts and copy of notice dated 20.10.2016 purported to have been sent to Arbitrator and the claimant apprising them of the factum of the death of Harsharan Singhhis father. It is not case of the claimant that pin code of the addresses which find mentioned in these postal receipts relied upon by the objector are not correct. Therefore, nonfiling of the track report by the petitioner does not adversely affect the case of the objector.
10. In the given situation, when factum of death of Harsharan Singh was brought to the notice of Arbitrator and the claimant, by way of notice dated 20.10.2016 and the Award came to be passed exparte, same deserves to be set aside.
11. As a result, objection petition is allowed and the Award dated 31.01.2017 passed by Arbitrator in claim petition bearing ARB.
No.925/2016 is hereby set aside. Digitally signed
by NARINDER
File be consigned to Record Room. NARINDER KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.11.01
16:07:11 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Narinder Kumar)
on this 31st day of October, 2019. Additional District Judge04 (West), Delhi.
ARBTN No. 25/2017 Sh. Gurmeet Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Page No.5 of 5