Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan, learned counsel on record for petitioner is before this Court.

http://www.judis.nic.in

2. PREFATORY NOTE:

2(i) Instant 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity and it has been filed assailing an arbitral award dated 27.05.2013 made by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole Arbitrator qua a 'Hire Purchase agreement dated 06.02.1998 bearing HP Con.No.RP3347' (hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience). One covenant in said contract is an arbitration clause and therefore, the same serves as 'arbitration agreement' between the parties being 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act.
5. Broad summation of prefatory note is:
a) Contours/confines of Section 34 OP are limited;
b) The adumbration under Section 34 are in the nature of pigeon holes (some being keyholes and pinholes) and not grounds;
c) A OP under Section 34 is neither an appeal nor a revision. It is not even a full-fledged judicial review, but a limited judicial review within the contours and confines of 8 pigeon holes;
6(i) In the light of prefatory note supra, short facts shorn of elaboration or in other words, factual matrix in a nutshell will suffice for disposal of instant OP. To put it differently, it is not necessary to dilate in detail qua facts. Suffice to say that the fulcrum of instant OP is said contract i.e., a loan agreement dated 06.02.1998, wherein the first respondent company financed purchase of a truck by the petitioner and the second respondent stood guarantee. To be noted, today second respondent has been given up. Third respondent is the sole arbitrator, who constituted the Arbitral Tribunal. With regard to first respondent, though the first respondent company has entered appearance through a counsel and though the name of the counsel is shown in the cause list, no one has come before this Court to oppose this OP. Notwithstanding this position, this Court proceeds to embark upon the exercise of deciding the OP on merits. To be noted, while embarking upon this exercise, this http://www.judis.nic.in Court has reminded itself of sub-section (6) of Section 34, which prescribes one year time line for disposal of OPs under Section 34. This one year time line for disposal of OPs under Section 34 of A and C Act has been emphasised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhumi Vikas Bank case law (supra). Though Bhumi Vikas Bank case law is an authority for the broad proposition that sub-section (5) of Section 34 is directory and not mandatory, the observation in Paragraph 25 of Bhumi Vikas Bank case law is of significance and this Court, respectfully follows the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, this Court notices that instant OP was presented in this Court on 23.08.2013 more than six years and six months ago and further delay on account of first respondent company's counsel not appearing before this Court cannot be countenanced. This has already been alluded to supra under the caption 'PREFATORY NOTE'.

7(vii) This takes us to dispositive reasoning qua instant Section 34 petition. As already alluded to supra, in the prefatory note, there are http://www.judis.nic.in eight pigeon holes available under Section 34 of A and C Act for entertaining a petition assailing an arbitral award. In the instant case, from the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, this case fits snugly and neatly into Section 34(2)(b)(ii) read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1. In other words, it is in conflict with the public policy of India and it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law.