Dismissed

Shree Gopal Purohit and Ravi Shree Gopal Purohit v. the Motor and General Finance Ltd.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2014ARBP/148/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award against petitioners who defaulted on vehicle lease payments, holding that the arbitrator's calculation of dues was not open to interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shree Gopal Purohit and Ravi Shree Gopal Purohit Vs the Motor and… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

ARBP. 148/2013(2)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 148 OF 2013

¶6

Shree Gopal Purohit & Anr. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶7

The Motor & General Finance Ltd.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr. S.K. Jain i/b. S.K. Jain & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. M.P. Tekavade a/w. Ms. Aarti Galagalie, Advocates for the Respondent

¶10

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 14^TH JULY, 2014

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The petitioners have challenged a money award dated 18^th July, 2012 based upon the lease agreement entered into between the parties in respect of the vehicle purchased by the petitioners from the loan granted by the respondent. The initial lease agreement was dated 30^th June, 1995. Certain installments were paid. Thereafter certain installments remained payable, but were not paid and consequently a fresh agreement came to be entered in to by the parties. Under that lease agreement Rs.3.70 lakhs was to be paid. The monthly lease amounts have been stated. Several installments have been paid. Thereafter there have been defaults. The total amount paid is Rs.2.21 lakhs. Consequently about Rs.1.60 lakhs would remain due and payable.

¶13

The vehicle was repossessed and sold. The sale price was

¶14

ARBP. 148/2013(2)

¶15

¶16

Rs.80,000/-. The petitioner was entitled to get credit for that price from Rs.1.60 lakhs. Hence the further amount due and payable would be a further Rs.80,000/- which would have to be paid by the petitioners.

¶17

The claim of the respondent herein consisted of 5 separate amounts shown in the claim itself aggregating to Rs.2.26 lakhs. Only the amount towards the lease amount due is granted. All further claims have been rejected. Neither party has challenged the rejection. Only the grant is challenged by the petitioners which is required to be seen in this petition. The entire evidence led by the parties has not to be gone into. That consists of documentary evidence. The simple arithmetical calculation of the monies required to be paid less the amounts paid leaving a balance due, part of which would be satisfied upon the sale of the vehicle so that a net balance amount is due was only to be considered in the arbitration. Only that part has to be seen in the petition.

¶18

The petitioners have sought to complicate this simple issue wholly erroneously. The petitioners have sought to calculate the amounts payable upon fixing the value of the vehicle unilaterally and without particulars. The learned Arbitrator has rejected the value arbitrarily fixed by the petitioners herein for the sale of the vehicle and consequently rejected the counter claim of the petitioners herein. The learned Arbitrator has granted a total sum due with interest at 12% p.a from the date of the filing of the

¶19

ARBP. 148/2013(2)

¶20

¶21

statement of claim until realisation and Rs.20,000/- as the costs of the proceedings.

¶22

The petitioners herein have deposited Rs.90,000/- in this Court pursuant to an earlier order. The respondent had withdrawn that amount. Hence the learned Arbitrator has given credit for adjustment of the amount. The entire award, therefore, proceeds upon the correct premise. Indeed the only correct premise is to see the accrued amount payable less the amount paid less the amount recovered upon sale of the vehicle to determine the total amount.

¶23

The learned Arbitrator has granted the balance of the claim amount which would be the recovery of the monthly lease rent and awarded additional charges for delayed payment of Rs.16,184/-. It is seen that additional charge for delayed payment was to be made. It is also seen that a lumpsum of Rs.5000/- has been paid which is stated to be towards additional on account of delayed payment. That amount makes up the total sum of Rs.2.21 lakhs paid being Rs.2.16 towards the EMIs and Rs.5000/- towards additional lease rent. The grant of a further reasonable amount towards additional lease rent, therefore, cannot be faulted and interfered with.

¶24

Consequently the learned Arbitrator has only granted the balance of the lease rent and a reasonable amount for the delayed payment charges.

¶25

ARBP. 148/2013(2)

¶26

¶27

Extensive argument showing complex arithmetical calculations made by Mr. Jain to Court cannot be countenanced. The view taken by the Arbitrator as a possible view which the Court cannot interfere with.

¶28

It has also been argued that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unjust because it was made by the respondent alone. The respondent is a financial company. The petitioners have sought to take finance. They have entered into lease agreement. They are bound by the agreement. The agreement shows a named Arbitrator. It was sought to be suggested that the name was added later because it was not initialled. This suggestion is also incorrect because the typewritten particulars including the name and address of the petitioners are also not initialled. Consequently the Arbitrator has been appointed as per agreement between the parties. In fact the Arbitrator has shown himself to be an independent Arbitrator though he may have been known to the respondent. The rejection of all, but two claims of the respondent shows this fact.

¶29

The reasoning of the learned Arbitrator as also the arithmetical calculations done by the Arbitrator are correct and deserves no interference.

¶30

The petition, is, therefore, dismissed.

¶31

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Shree Gopal Purohit and Ravi Shree Gopal Purohit v. the Motor and General Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shree Gopal Purohit and Ravi Shree Gopal Purohit v. the Motor and General Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heena Mehta Vs Cd Equisearch Pvt. Ltd. and Kaushik K. Mehta and Others

Uttareshwar G Kshirsagar and Bhamabai G Kshirsagar Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.

Spectrum Jewellery Ltd. Vs Transcend Consulting India Pvt.Ltd

Pratibha Tushar Sanghavi and Anr. Vs Paresh Vinodlal Jhaveri(Huf) and 5 Ors.

Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs L and T Finance Ltd. and Another

Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs L and T Finance Ltd. and Another