Dismissed

Hem Chand v. Des Raj Sethi and Ors.

Delhi HC10 May 2016EX.F.A./13/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal filed by a guarantor against the dismissal of his objections to the execution of an arbitral award. The court held that the objection was factually incorrect and rejected due to the failure to file objections under Section 34 within the statutory period.

What did the court decide?

The appeal as well as the connected CM applications stand dismissed.

Hem Chand Vs Des Raj Sethi and Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- EFA 13/2016 & CM Nos.17470-71/2016

¶4

..... Appellant

¶5

HEM CHAND ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

DES RAJ SETHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through:

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 10.05.2016

¶11

This appeal is filed against the order dated 17^th March, 2016, by virtue of which the Objections of the appellant against the execution of the decree were dismissed.

¶12

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the present appellant was a guarantor in a loan agreement. The person who had advanced the loan had gone for arbitration and filed a statement of claim against the principal borrower, impleading the present appellant as the respondent in the said clam petition. The liability of the principal borrower and the guarantor was stated to be joint and several. The arbitrator served the notice on the present appellant twice way back in the year 2011-2012. Despite this, the appellant did not appear which resulted in passing of an ex parte Award. The principal borrower filed Objections, which were dismissed. A copy of the award was

¶13

sent to all the parties, including the respondent. The objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 have to be filed within 90 days from the date of service of the award. No objections were filed by the appellant. At the stage of execution, he filed the Objections, stating that the Award is not executable against him, as he was not served. This was factually incorrect as the Objections have been dismissed and he is also held to be liable to pay the amount. The present appellant has preferred the appeal against the said dismissal of the Objections dated 12^th March, 2016.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through

¶15

the records and do not find any illegality in the rejection of his Objections by the learned Additional District Judge on 17^th March, 2016.

¶16

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

CM APPL. Nos.17470-71/2016 also stand dismissed.

¶18

V.K. SHALI, J.

¶19

MAY 10, 2016 tp

Hem Chand v. Des Raj Sethi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Chand v. Des Raj Sethi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raeesa Vs Sheikh Fakhruddin & Ors.

Rajinder Tandon Vs Master Prince

Rajbai Vs Praveer Sinha Ceo, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

Ravi Kant Sinha & Ors. Vs Raj Sinha & Ors.

Shri Balendu Lohiya and Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jasvinder Singh Heera @ Shunty Vs Suresh Bharija & Anr.