Delhi High Court
M.Daniel Gnanam vs Delhi Sehakari Nagrik Bank Ltd. on 13 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: March 12, 2010
Date of Order: April 13, 2010
+ CM(M) 1986/2005
% 13.04.2010
M. DANIEL GNANAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virender Goswami & Ms. Soni Singh,
Advocates.
Versus
DELHI SEHAKARI NAGRIK BANK LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate.
AND
+ CM(M) 1987/2005 & C.M. Appl. No.12434/2005
%
RAM LAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virender Goswami & Ms. Soni Singh,
Advocates.
Versus
DELHI SEHAKARI NAGRIK BANK LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 5th July, 2005, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 76 of the CM(M) 1986 & 1987 of 1992 Page 1 Of 3 Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 against award dated 19th January, 2005, passed by the Arbitrator in an arbitration case between petitioner and respondent no. 1.
2. The arbitration proceedings were invoked in terms of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act as the petitioner had disputed his liability to pay the amount to respondent No. 1 under surety bond executed by the petitioner while loan was granted to a member of the bank. After reference, the Arbitrator fixed the matter for 18th January, 2005 when the petitioner did not appear before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator after considering the documents signed by the petitioner, including the surety bond, gave his award.
3. In appeal, the petitioner has taken stand before the appellate Tribunal that the petitioner had signed the surety bond by mistake. He did not intend to become surety. Regarding non appearance before the Arbitrator, it was stated that the counsel, by mistake, went to Parliament Street office of the Registrar of Societies instead of going to venue of arbitration fixed by the learned Arbitrator.
4. Learned appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself observing that the grounds taken by the petitioner were not tenable. Once a person signs a surety bond, he is responsible for it and he is bound to fulfill the obligation under the surety bond. He cannot take a plea that he signed surety bond by mistake. Such a plea does not absolve a surety from his liability. The Tribunal also found the excuse of non appearance before the Arbitrator, as a lame excuse.
5. It is settled law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court does not sit as a court of appeal and cannot correct the mistake of facts and law.
CM(M) 1986 & 1987 of 1992 Page 2 Of 3 The court can interfere only where a Tribunal/court acts beyond jurisdiction or contrary to settled position of law or fails to exercise jurisdiction. No such case is made out in this petition. The order of Tribunal is in accordance with law. The Tribunal has not acted contrary to settled position of law nor has gone beyond its jurisdiction.
6. I find no reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal. This petition is hereby dismissed.
April 13, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. acm CM(M) 1986 & 1987 of 1992 Page 3 Of 3