Delhi High Court
The Motor And General Finance Ltd. vs V.M. Joy And Anr. on 11 April, 1988
Equivalent citations: 35 (1988) DLT 60
Author: C Chandbry
Bench: C Chaudhry
JUDGMENT
C.L. Chandbry, J.
(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction that the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 30.8.1983 containing arbitration clause be ordered to be filed in the court and the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate.
(2) The case of the petitioner is that by a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 30.8.1983 the petitioner gave on hire to the respondent No. I a motor vehicle of Tata make bearing the following specifications :-
A.Engine NO. 692-DOI-7-74460. b. Chasis No. 344-073-7-71367. c. Regd. No. KLI-4421.
On the terms and conditions stated in the agreement. The respondent No. 2 guaranteed due performance of the 'said agreement by respondent No. 1. In terms of clause 6 of the agreement the parties agreed to refer all questions and matters of difference touching the construction their of or any act or thing in regard to the rights, duties and obligations in their performance to the sole arbitration of. Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate or in the event of his refusal or inability to act as an Arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Krishan Jain, Advocate. In terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement the respondents agreed to pay Rs 2.48.400.00 in 47 hire Installments. The hire. money was to be paid on or before the first day of each English calendar month. In the event of default in payment of any monthly hire on the due date the respondents were bound to restore possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No. I is in possession of the vehicle only as a bailee. The respondents have failed and neglected to pay the hire amounts as agreed by them. The respondent No. I has paid a sum of Rs. 47,700.00 towards the hire money and Rs. 9,900.00 towards compensation charges. It is claimed that a sum of Rs. l,21,900.00 is due and payable under the hire money and a sum of Rs. 28,806.00 is due towards compensation charges for late payment and Rs. 78.800.00 is claimed to be due towards future Installments. In all the claim is made up of Rs. l,50,760.00 . It is alleged that despite notice the respondents have not paid the amount nor surrendered the possession of the vehicle. The disputes which have arisen between the parties are mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition.
(3) Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. Despite service they chose not to appear. They were proceeded ex-parte.
(4) The affidavit of Shri A K. Ahiuwalia S/o Shri Munna Lal, General Attorney of the petitioner has been filed by way of evidence.
(5) From the facts disclosed in the affidavit the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 30.8.1983 including the arbitration clause stands proved. It also stands proved that the petition has been filed by a duly authorised person on behalf of the petitioner. The disputes and differences as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition have arisen between the parties which are conversed under the arbitration agreement. The petitioner has been able to establish its case ex-parte.
(6) In the result the petition is allowed. It is directed that the arbitration agreement be filed in the Court. In fact it has been filed and it need not be filed again. In view of the arbitration agreement Shri Inderit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi is appointed as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the petition. The petitioner is entitled to costs of these proceedings. The petition is disposed of.
