Madras High Court
Dr.G.Kummararaj vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance ... on 18 November, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7768 of 2021
Dr.G.Kummararaj .. Petitioner
-vs-
M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Rep., by its Senior Manager (Legal),
Mr.P.Govindaraj,
No.5M, Ramachandrapuram,
Thennur, Trichy-620 017. .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to call
for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 made in
E.P.No.108 of 2021 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Trichy
in Arbitration Case No.13/2015 on the file of the Sole Arbitrator
Thiru.Suresh Kumar, Trichy and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Jananth Ahmed
For Respondent : No appearance
******
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
ORDER
The judgment debtor in E.P.No.108 of 2021 in Arbitration Case
No.13 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge
(PCR), Tiruchirappalli is the revision petitioner before this Court.
2.The petitioner herein had suffered an ex-parte arbitration award
in Arbitration Case No.13 of 2015, dated 09.04.2015 in and by which, he
was directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,56,162/- together with interest at 18%
per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of its
realization. The amounts were due towards a trade loan availed of by the
petitioner from the respondent herein. Although the trade loan of
Rs.5,00,000/- was agreed to be repaid in 36 instalments by the revision
petitioner, without a demand and without default, the revision petitioner
had failed to pay the instalments as agreed upon. After paying a sum of
Rs.2,50,258/-, no further payments had been paid and therefore, after
issuing necessary notice and taking into account the arbitration clause
contained in the agreement, the respondent/finance company had
initiated arbitral proceedings. The revision petitioner, on whom
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
summons had been issued, failed to appear for the hearing. Therefore,
the ex-parte award came to be passed. The petitioner, thereafter, had
filed a petition in Arbitration O.P.No.127 of 2021 under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Tiruchirappalli for setting aside the arbitral award. It
appears that the petitioner has also filed a petition for staying the award
in I.A.No.1 of 2021. However, no order of stay has been obtained by
him.
3.Meanwhile, in the execution proceedings initiated by the
respondent, once again respondents 1 and 2 in the arbitration case
remained ex-parte and it was only the third respondent/judgment debtor,
who is the petitioner herein who had filed a counter stating that he was
only a guarantor and that he had not received any notice of the arbitration
and neither was he served with the arbitral award.
4.The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),
Tiruchirapalli on perusing the records held that since the award has not
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
been stayed, the executing court was bound to execute the award and the
respondents in the arbitration case, who had the means to discharge the
amount, had not done so. The learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge was inclined to allow the execution petition directing respondents
1 and 3 to deposit the amount of Rs.9,29,545.42 within a period of 15
days failing which, an attachment of the movables will be ordered. It is
this order that is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.
5.Perusal of the records would indicate that although notice had
been issued to the respondents in the arbitration case, they had not
appeared before the Sole Arbitrator and an arbitral award came to be
passed on 09.04.2015. The petitioner/3rd respondent alone has filed an
application to set aside the arbitration award and the same has been
numbered only in the year 2021. Although an application for stay has
been filed, no stay has been obtained by him. The petitioner has also not
taken steps to prosecute the Section 34 application at the earliest. As
rightly held by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruchirappalli, the execution court is bound to execute the decree and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
cannot go behind the same. Unless and until the petitioner obtains a stay
of further proceedings, the executing court is bound to proceed with the
execution petition. The execution petition has been filed only in the year
2021, though an award had been passed in the year 2015. Therefore, the
petitioner herein and respondents 2 and 3 in the arbitration case were
given ample time to satisfy the decree or to set aside the ex-parte arbitral
award. They have not availed of the said opportunity and the only
attempt appears to be to prolong the proceedings. In these
circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The I Additional District and Sessions
Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1359 of 2021
Dated: 18.11.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
