Shivansh Chawla & Anr. vs M/S. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1412 Del

*                   HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                F.A.O. No.84/2016

                                      Decided on : 22nd February, 2016

SHIVANSH CHAWLA & ANR.               ...... Appellants
            Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Bahl, Advocate.

                        Versus

M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. & ANR.
                                    ...... Respondents

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.6391/2016 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No.6390/2016 (delay)

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 16 days delay in re-

filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned as 'sufficient cause'

has been shown.

3. The application stands disposed of.

F.A.O. No.84/2016

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 37 of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 29.9.2015

passed by the learned ADJ in Arb. No.168/2013 by virtue of which the

objections of the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act were dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants have

taken a loan of Rs.3,72,845/- from the respondent in January, 2004 for

purchase of Maruti Esteem car which was repayable in 58 EMIs of

Rs.7,528/- each. Thereafter three personal loans amounting to

Rs.1,50,885/-, 2,27,431/- and 3,38,262/- were also taken by the

appellants. The car loan was liquidated in November, 2008 and first two

personal loans of Rs.1,50,885/- and 2,27,431/- were merged into

successive loans. On account of non-payment of EMIs, dispute arose

between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator who

passed an award on 24.2.2013 directing the appellants to make payment

of Rs.2,69,540.46 along with interested @ 18 per cent per annum to the

respondent with effect from 11.8.2010 till payment within one month

from the receipt of the award. He also awarded Rs.9,000/- towards

expenses/costs incurred by the respondent on the arbitration proceedings.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed arbitration petition bearing

No.168/2013 which was also dismissed by the learned ADJ vide

impugned order dated 29.9.2015. The learned ADJ rejected the

objections of the appellants holding that they have not been able to show

as to how the award is against the public policy or any illegality in terms

of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which would

warrant setting aside of the award.

4. Still not feeling satisfied, the appellants preferred the present

appeal. Even before this court, the learned counsel for the appellants has

not been able to show any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in

the order dated 29.9.2015 rejecting the award, therefore, it does not call

for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

FEBRUARY 22, 2016 'AA'