Rukma Tandon vs Muthoot Finance Limited & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 590 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 10/2013

%                                              30th January, 2014

RUKMA TANDON                                               ......Appellant
                          Through:       Proxy counsel for Mr. M.S.Oberoi,
                                         Advocate.


                          VERSUS

MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.                             ...... Respondents
                 Through:  None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 17847/2013 (Restoration) & CM No. 17848/2013 (Delay)

      For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned and appeal

is restored to its original number. CMs stand disposed of.

FAO 10/2013

1.    This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated

4.7.2012 dismissing the objections filed by the appellant herein.



FAO 10/2013                                                                  Page 1 of 3
 2.       Appellant took two loans. One was of Rs.3lacs and another of

Rs.40,000/- on 14.3.2007 and 7.4.2007 respectively from the respondents

herein. These loans were taken against pledge of gold ornaments and on

failure of the appellant/borrower to repay the loan amounts, arbitration

proceedings were initiated, and which has resulted in the impugned Award

dated 12.11.2011 awarding the claim of the loan amounts plus interest

against the appellant and in favour of the respondent no.1 herein.

3.       The court below has rightly dismissed the objections because

appellant cannot plead its non-availability on the ground that the documents

were signed in blank though admitting that not only loan was taken but in

fact certain amount was repaid back.       Further the contention which is

recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court on 8.1.2013

that appellant has not been given benefit of adjustment of the price of the

gold ornaments, it may be stated that respondent will ensure that the

appellant will be given adjustments of the sale price of the gold ornaments,

and also that before the sale is conducted of the gold ornaments which was

pledged for taking of the loan, appropriate notice will be given to the

appellant and the gold ornaments will be sold at the best available market

price.


FAO 10/2013                                                              Page 2 of 3
 4.    The scope of hearing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act is limited. If the scope of hearing objections is limited,

then the scope of hearing objections by an appellate court hearing appeal

against the judgment dismissing objections is further limited. I accordingly

find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.

5.    The appeal, subject to observations in para 3 above, is dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JANUARY 30, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib