Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12 Section 18 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act has been stated to have M/s Routes Car Rentals (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s Reliance Capital Ltd. Contd.....P....4 of 24 : 5 :
been violated as petitioners had not been given a full opportunity to present their case. Petitioners have submitted that most of the correspondence were returned unserved from the petitioners who were an active service providers amongst the radio taxi service in the city and could have been located and contacted at the relevant addresses of office, shop, house, e­ mail, etc and Ld. Arbitrator ought to have served the petitioners by alternative means such as publication. It has also been submitted that after obtaining ex­parte award, notice dated 15.06.2011 was sent at residential address of petitioner No.2. Thus, the respondent was aware of address of petitioners but it chose not to send the notice at correct address of the petitioners, thus reflecting connivance of respondent and Ld. Arbitrator. Ld. Arbitrator could have sent the notices at residential address of petitioner No.2. 13 Petitioners have also contended that the impugned award was also deliberately not served at them despite respondent having correct address of the petitioners.
never sent to the petitioners. Hence, the award could not have been passed ex­parte against the petitioners.

15 Ld. Arbitrator is stated to have been biased as he was under the control of respondent and he had not disclosed his connections with the respondent as he regularly acts as an arbitrator for various financial companies including respondent. Thus, Ld. Arbitrator is stated to have violated section 12(1) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 16 Petitioners have submitted that the impugned reference was made to the Ld. Arbitrator on 22.10.2009 and after 10 months, petitioners were claimed to be intimated vide notice dated 10.07.2010 to appear before Ld. Arbitrator on 20.07.2010. However, thereafter, proceedings were held on regular interval and the impugned award was passed with undue haste on 18.05.2011. It is also submitted that the value of the re­possessed vehicle was more than the outstanding amount and the loan facility was a secured liability which had already been requisitioned by the respondent but only a vague amount in the detail of outstanding amount has been given in the impugned award claiming to justify the sale of re­possessed vehicle and nowhere in the arbitral proceedings, the claimants have given the details pertaining to re­possession / status / valuation of assets and no proof of sale / auction of vehicle has been taken on record by Ld. Arbitrator which could justify a meager sale price of Rs. 1,18,518/­.

or collusion between the Ld. Arbitrator and respondent. Thus, there is no violation of section 12 or section 21 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

37 Thus, ld. Arbitrator was conscious of participation of petitioners in the arbitral proceedings and directed for their service on each date of hearing for the relevant proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the arbitrator held the meetings of arbitral proceedings in haste without satisfying himself about the due service being affected on the opposite party. A reading of award, as detailed in the earlier part of this order, establishes that ld. arbitrator emphasised the due service of notice on the petitioners on all dates of hearing as well as with respect to delivery/service of award, establishing that the arbitrator did not act in haste. Respondent is a financial institution and the amount involved in these recovery matters is of the investors who are paid regular returns on their investment in these institutions and in my considered opinion, there is nothing wrong on part of Ld. arbitrator in proceeding ex­parte in the facts of the case. 38 A perusal of loan agreement reveals that the petitioners had supplied the address of Rajokari in the loan application form and address of petitioner no.2 of Gurgaon was furnished. In the common declarations at the end of the application form, at declaration no.10, petitioners had specifically undertaken that they shall inform the respondent regarding any changes in their address or employment or profession. As per Article 5.1 (d) of the Loan Agreement, the petitioners had convenanted that they shall notify the respondent of any change in their residential status within 10 days of such change. Ld. Coounsel for petitioners have filed copy of e­mail dated 19.12.12 in the court on 22.12.12 whereby it was informed that M/s Routes Car Rentals (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s Reliance Capital Ltd. Contd.....P....14 of 24 : 15 :