Delhi High Court
Amrit Pal Singh vs M/S Alpha Motor Finance Ltd. & Anr. on 19 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 282/2013 & conn.
% 19th March, 2014
+ FAO 282/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 283/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 284/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1
+ FAO 285/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
FAO 282/2013 & conn. Page 1 of 6
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 286/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 287/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 288/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
+ FAO 289/2013
AMRIT PAL SINGH ......Appellant
Through: None.
VERSUS
FAO 282/2013 & conn. Page 2 of 6
M/s ALPHA MOTOR FINANCE LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents.
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
FAO No. 282/2013
1. No one appears for the appellant although it is 12.20 PM.
2. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') challenging the judgment of the
trial court dated 25.2.2013 by which the objections filed by the appellant
under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed.
3. The facts of the case are that appellant took loan from the respondent
for purchase of a vehicle HR-38E-3539 in the year 2001 and a Vehicle
Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 3.11.2001 was entered into.
Subsequently, a fresh Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 31.3.2004
was entered into as various loan installments which were to be paid under
the agreement dated 3.11.2001 were not paid. A settlement was also entered
into thereafter on 31.3.2007, which was however not complied with by the
appellant, and consequently arbitration proceedings were invoked and the
FAO 282/2013 & conn. Page 3 of 6
arbitrator had passed the Award dated 27.9.2010 decreeing the claim of the
respondent/lender for an amount of Rs.3,71,602/- alongwith interest at 12%
per annum simple.
4. The court below has noted that the appellant did not dispute the
signatures on the agreement dated 31.3.2004 and therefore he was liable
under the same. The claim was also held to be within limitation because the
payment was to be made as per the agreement by 15.5.2007 and therefore
the claim petition filed within three years of 15.5.2007 ie on 9.10.2009 was
within limitation.
5. The court below has also held that once the compromise agreement
dated 31.3.2007 fell through, the original terms in the agreement dated
31.3.2004 became enforceable and which contained the arbitration clause.
Court below also notes that appellant claimed to have made certain
payments, but no proof of such alleged payments was adduced before the
arbitrator.
6. The scope of hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act is
limited. Awards can only be interfered with if they are against the legal
provisions (Section 28(1)(a)) or against contractual provisions (Section
28(3)) or the Award is against the public policy. This is also held by the
FAO 282/2013 & conn. Page 4 of 6
Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC
705.
7. Issues of appreciation of evidence and conclusions to be derived from
the evidence led, is well within the scope of an arbitrator and courts will not
interfere once two views are possible. If arbitrator accepts one of the two
views which is possible by reading of the evidence, there does not exist any
perversity for a court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act to
interfere.
8. The facts of the case show that appellant availed of the loan, failed to
repay the installments, entered into a fresh agreement subsequently in the
year 2004, again failed to repay the loan installments, entered into a
settlement on 31.3.2007 and which again he breached by failing to comply
with the same by making payment and therefore the arbitrator was justified
in awarding the amount of claim which is the amount of due installments
alongwith interest. Even interest has been awarded only at a reasonable rate
of 12% per annum although the respondent/claimant had claimed interest at
3% per month.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
FAO 282/2013 & conn. Page 5 of 6
FAO Nos. 283/13, 284/13, 285/13, 286/13, 287/13, 288/13 & 289/13
The present appeals will be wholly covered by the judgment given in
FAO No.282/2013, and the same are also therefore dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
March 19, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
