Remanded

Sreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. Reeni Thomas

Kerala HC5 Dec 2012CRP/240/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed whether an application to set aside an arbitral award was filed within the statutory limitation. The court remanded the matter on the condition that the respondent pay a portion of the award amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

The respondent must pay Rs. 2,00,000 towards the alleged award debt within three months; the proceedings in O.P.(Arbitration) No. 59/2009 shall continue.

Sreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd Vs Reeni Thomas — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/14TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 240 of 2011 ( )

¶6

OP(ARB) 59/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS KOTTAYAM NEW BRANCH MANAGER SUMESH.S., SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD GEETHA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEAR Y.M.C.A., M.C.ROAD KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

REENI THOMAS, KARUVALLIL HOUSE, POOZHIKKOL P.O., MANNAR KARA, KADUTHURUTHY VAIKOM TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶15

C.R.P. NO. 240 OF 2011

¶16

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2012

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The short question is as to whether the application put in by the respondent/hirer to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act' for short) is in time or not. The petitioner/financier contends that O.P.(Arbitration) No. 59/2009 filed under Section 34 of the Act on 14.07.2009 is long after the receipt of the award despatched by the arbitrator on 30.06.2008. The respondent on the other hand maintains that he knew about the arbitral award only when he received notice in the execution petition on 13.04.2009. The respondent applied for a certified copy of the arbitral award by recourse to Right to Information Act and the same was received on 09.06.2009. It is contended that O.P.(Arbitration) No. 59/2009 filed on 14.07.2009 is within the time permitted under Section 34 (3) of the Act.

¶19

The respondent has relied on Ext.A5 reply by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kottayam to contend

¶20

¶21

CRP No. 240/2011

¶22

that he was temporarily residing in another address during the material time. But the petitioner asserts that the signature in the acknowledgment card evidences the receipt of the arbitral award on 30.06.2008 itself. It was the bounden duty of the respondent therefore to examine the postman or the postal authorities to explain the signature found in the acknowledgment card dated 30.06.2008. I find from the records that no orders were passed on I.A. No. 1623/2010 in O.P. (Arbitration) No. 59/2009 filed by the respondent to issue summons to the Postal Superintendent. The presumption arising from the circumstances can be rebutted by the respondent only if tangible evidence is adduced on that behalf.

¶23

I am inclined to afford an opportunity to the respondent to examine the Postal Superintendent or postman or adduce such further evidence as necessary. But such an opportunity could be afforded only if substantial payments are made towards the amount due under the award. The petitioner contends that a sum of ` 8,00,000/- is still due from the respondent which is however emphatically denied. The

¶24

¶25

CRP No. 240/2011

¶26

respondent contends that a sum of ` 3,80,000/- has been repaid and that a little more amount would be due towards interest.

¶27

I remand the matter on condition that the respondent pays a sum of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards the amount allegedly due under the award to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order holding that O.P.(Arbitration) No. 59/2009 is not barred by limitation and hence maintainable is hereby set aside. The parties shall appear in the court of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam on 03.01.2013.

¶28

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶29

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶30

ncd

Sreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. Reeni Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd v. Reeni Thomas

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

Mathen Varghese Vs Gopinatha Menon

Hamsa Vs Fathima

Wilson Louis Vs Balan Nadar

George Kurian Vs the South Malabar Gramin Bank Limited

Sasnthaseelan Vs Vijayachandrika

Valsala Rajan Vs the Greets Academy