Delhi High Court
Motor And General Finance Limited vs Prem Shankar Singh And Anr. on 1 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 61 (1996) DLT 772
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) This is a petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the arbitration agreement and for reference of the disputes to the named Arbitrator. The petitioner Company had entered into an agreement bearing No. 28/S/P.9676 T1 dated 20th September, 1982 with defendant No.1. The petitioner Company vide the said agreement hired out a second hand bus bearing registration No. Dlp 6731 now No. Utn 905 to the respondent No. I under the said hire purchase agreement. The respondent No.2 signed the hire purchase agreement as guarantor for and on behalf of respondent No.1, The agreement was entered into for a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00 which included the value of the vehicle at Rs. 90,000.00 and hire purchases charges for 24 months at Rs 32,400.00 and insurance charges of Rs. 2600.00 . The respondent No.1 was to pay the said amount in 24 instalments as per schedule B to the agreement.
(2) The petitioner allegation is that the respondent No.1 failed and neglected to pay the hire instalments and is in breach of the agreement. The petitioner Company is, therefore, entitled to possession of the vehicle and to claim the amounts due as well as compensation and interest in terms of the agreement. The petitioner Company in view of the default of the respondent terminated the agreement on 23rd September, 1988.
(3) The hire purchase agreement in Clause VI-(a) contains an arbitration agreement providing for reference of all the disputes and/or claims arising out of the said hire purchase agreement to the sole arbitration of one Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate and in the event of his refusal or neglect or inability to act as an Arbitrator then to the sole arbitration of Shri Balkrishan Jain, Advocate.
(4) The notices of the petition were reissued to the respondent No. I and respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 guarantor was served for 18.7.1989 but failed to appear and as such was proceeded ex parte on 13.3.1990. In the event, service by substituted means and affixation was ordered for respondent No. 1. The citation was published in the National Herald, Lucknow edition of 18.9.1992. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 was directed in addition to be served by affixation of summons. The respondent No. 1 was also served by affixation on 9th August, 1994 and consequently proceeded ex parte on 30.9.1994 since none appeared.
(5) The petitioner was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Shri Rajiv Gupta, Director Incharge and constituted attorney of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company vide this affidavit has proved the original agreement Exhibit PW-1/1, which contains the arbitration agreement providing for reference of all disputes and claims to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi. The petitioner Company has duly proved the existence of disputes. The petitioner Company has set out its claims in para 7(i) to (v) of the petition.
(6) The petitioner Company has duly proved the agreement dated 20.9.1982 containing the arbitration agreement as well as the existence of disputes and claims. In these circumstances, the original arbitration agreement is directed to be filed. The petition is allowed. Mr. Inderjit Gulati, Advocate is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims as set out in para 7(i) to (v) of the petition. The petition stands disposed of.
