Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Thereafter, in the first week of September' 2011, the petitioner received a letter from Arbitrator, Respondent No.1, whereby it was communicated to him that he had entered into Reference in respect of a dispute raised by Respondent No.2 before him in Chennai, in pursuance to Loan Agreement, dated 28.12.2006. The petitioner immediately on 13.09.2011 sent reply to Respondent No.1, Arbitrator, interalia pointing it out to him that he was never informed about the appointment of Respondent No.1 as an Arbitrator in the matter; he did not receive copy of any Statement of Claim, filed by Respondent No.2 before him and further categorically stated that no part of cause of action ever arose in Chennai, therefore, Respondent No.1/Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to enter the Reference and he categorically made clear that his consent was not obtained before appointing Respondent No.1 as an Arbitrator in the matter. He categorically pointed out the pendency of his petition before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum as well as the illegal act of Respondent No.2 in making him to face criminal prosecution before the court of Ld.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

8. The other grounds which have been taken by the respondent No.2 in opposing this petition are that the petitioner has committed fraud upon this court by filing various forged and fabricated receipts, in respect of which the respondent No. 2 has already filed a petition U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C, which is pending in the court of Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate. The other grounds are that the Arbitrator having decided that he had the jurisdiction to enter into reference and passing Award is not open to review by this court; that this court cannot sit in appeal over the Award passed by the Arbitrator; that if more than one view is possible and the Arbitrator having chosen one particular view, this Award cannot be interfered with by this court. On merits, it has been stated that the petitioner is in the habit of obtaining loans from various banks and private financiers and not repaying the same and further that the officials of respondent No.2 had never refused to supply either the copy of the loan agreement or the statement of account to the petitioner in past. The facts regarding Respondent No.2 having filed criminal case U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in the court of Ld.Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur have not been denied.

10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that copy of the loan agreement was never handed over by respondent No.2 to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner had no idea about Clause 11.16 thereof, to be dealing with the arbitration and interalia holding that both the parties had agreed, in case of dispute for redressal through arbitration at Chennai, by an Arbitrator appointed by respondent No.2. He has made reference to the documents of loan, filed by respondent No.2 on record, which show that the loan agreement was entered into between the parties at Delhi; the loan was to be repaid in Delhi and even the personal loan/guarantee agreement was entered into in Delhi and as such, no part of cause of action ever arose in Chennai and as such, the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to enter reference at the instance of respondent No.2 alone.

16. The Arbitrator did not stop here. When he received reply from the petitioner, dated 13.09.2011 to the effect that he had not received any claim petition and further questioned the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in entering the reference, the Ld.Arbitrator proceeded with the matter without deciding the issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner. The Arbitrator should have gone into the loan agreement and other connected documents to satisfy himself as to where the cause of action arose and as to whether the petitioner was supplied the copy of loan agreement and claim petition or not. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court in OMP No.253/2004, titled as, "Vijay Kumar Goel V/s Delhi Jal Board & Anr." has been pleased to set aside the Award of the Arbitrator in following terms: