C.Manish Chandran vs Bajaj Finance Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 10692 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
    FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
                 OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)
PETITIONER:

          C.MANISH CHANDRAN,
          AGED 40 YEARS
          SON OF CHANDRAN, CHANASSERY HOUSE,
          VALLIVATTOM P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
          PIN - 680124

          BY ADVS.      S.VINOD BHAT
                        ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
                        GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R


RESPONDENTS:

    1     BAJAJ FINANCE LTD.
          HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 4TH FLCOR,
          SURVEY NO.208/1-B, BEHIND WEIKFIELD IT PARK,
          VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE -411014 WITH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
          4 TH FLOOR , DD TRADE TOWERS,
          KALOOR-KADAVANTHARA ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.,
          PIN - 682017

    2     C.S. TIMBERS,
          CHANASSERY PAINGODE,
          PUTHENCHIRA P.O. R
          THRISSUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY. ITS PROPRIETOR
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
          PIN - 680682

    3     THARAYIL UPENDRAN URMILA,
          AGED 62 YEARS
          2/298, CHANASSERY,
          PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680682

    4     CHANDRAN C.S,
          AGED 74 YEARS
          2/298, CHANASSERY, PUTHENCHIRA,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680682
 OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)

                                     -:2:-




      5       PRADEEP J MULE
              GULAB PAVILLION 6 TH FLOOR ,
              NEAR Z BRIDGE , OPPOSITE PMT BUS STOP
              DECCAN , SHIVAJINAGAR , PUNE, PIN - 411004

      THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)

                                       -:3:-




                  Dated this the 21st day of October,2022

                              JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed, to set aside Exts P2

and P3 arbitration reference letters issued by the first

respondent and Ext.P4 notice issued by a sole

arbitrator.

2. The petitioner contends that the first

respondent has unilaterally appointed an arbitrator in

violation to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC

(India) Ltd.[AIR 2020 SC 59] and Voestapine

Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Ltd.[(2017) 4 SCC 665]. Hence, Exts P2 to P4 are bad

and are to be interfered by this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

3. The Registry has questioned the

maintainability of the original petition, in view of OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)

restrictions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996(in short, Act').

4. Heard; Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

5. A reading of Clause 10.10 of Ext.P1

agreement shows that, the parties have agreed that

only the courts in Pune are vested with jurisdiction.

6. In addition to the above clause, Section 5 of

the Act, explicitly states that no judicial authority shall

intervene, except where so provided under the Act.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavan

Construction vs. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam

Ltd [(2022) 1 SCC 75] and Deep Industries Ltd v. Oil

and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd and another

[(2020) 15 SCC 706] has categorically held that the

High Court shall only in the case of exceptional rarity

interfere with the arbitral process initiated under the OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)

Act, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India.

8. In the above conspectus i.e., the alternative

statutory remedy provided under the Act and Clause in

Ext.P1 conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts

at Pune, I am not inclined to exercise the

extra-ordinary supervisory powers of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the

petitioner to work out his remedies as provided under

the Act, the original petition is dismissed, upholding

the objection of the Registry.

Sd/-

                                               C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

DST/21.10.22                                                     //True copy/

                                                                 P.A.To Judge

OP(C) NO. 2067 OF 2022(FILING NO.)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LOAN AGREEMENT SO EXECUTED WITH RESPECT TO LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 415CSH05893684 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 1 ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.09.2022 ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.09.2022 ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER/ NOTICE DATED 14.09.2022 ISSUED BY 5 TH RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL