Telangana High Court
M/S. Sara Transport vs M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: T.Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.471 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order and
decree dt.20.09.2023 in Arbitration O.P.No.2073 of 2018 on the file of the
XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the Court below and
the respondent in arbitration proceedings before the learned Arbitrator in
Arbitration Case No.2106 of 2017.
4. The aforesaid arbitration case was initiated at the behest of the
respondents herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,45,011/- being the
balance amount due under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement
dt.30.11.2011 entered into by the appellant herein for purchase of lorry/
truck.
5. Learned Arbitrator by his award dt.28.03.2018 had held that the
respondent-company herein had proved its claim and directed that the
appellant herein is liable to pay a sum of Rs.38,45,011/- in favour of the
claimant being the respondent herein jointly and severally along with the
2nd respondent in the aforesaid arbitration proceeding. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid arbitration award, the appellant herein had filed application
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short,
'the Act') for setting aside the arbitral award numbered as A.O.P.No.2073
of 2018.
6. The Court below duly considering the aforesaid application had
held that the appellant herein having failed to file any document in
support of its contentions raised and also failing to pay the balance
installments of loan amount, did not take any steps to get the vehicle
released after it was repossessed by the respondent herein, and thus, the
impugned arbitration award cannot be said to be perverse or irregular
and accordingly, dismissed the A.O.P.
7. Assailing the aforesaid order, the present C.M.A. is filed under
Section 37(1)(c) of the Act.
8. Though on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the Court
below had failed to consider the case of the appellant in its correct
perspective, it is to be noted that the scope to challenge to the arbitration
award under Section 34 and further under Section 37 of the Act is very
limited.
9. The Court below while adjudicating the aforesaid O.P., had taken
note of the legal position on the aforesaid aspect, placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation v/ s. Saw P ipes Lim ited 1 .
10. Though the appellant herein had contended that while passing the
said order, the Court below failed to take note of its contention of the
appellant being precluded from making payment of loan installments due
to reasons beyond its control, it is to be noted that a challenge to an
award, under Section 34 of the Act or for that matter under Section 37 of
the Act, can only be sustained when it is shown that the said award
suffers from patent illegality and public policy.
11. Since, the appellant except pleading that due to reasons beyond its
control it was unable to repay the loan taken from the respondents
herein, that by itself would not make either the award or order passed by
the Court below in rejecting Section 34 application as being illegal or
suffering from perversity for this Court to interfere under Section 37 of
the Act.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the order of the Court below passed under section 34 of the Act does not
suffer from any illegality or perversity or opposed to public policy for
being interfered.
2003 (5) SCC 705
13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to
costs.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:18.02.2025
_________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
GJ
