Original Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging an arbitral award held to be valid where petitioner failed to appear despite multiple prior notices and ex parte proceedings; no patent illegality supported re-appreciation of evidence.
Petition dismissed; Original Award dated 09.01.2017 confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
OP.No.634 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
OP.No.634 of 2018
Mr. P.V. Janardhanam
...Petitioner
Vs
1. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Representative
Having Office at No.123, Angappan Naickan St,
Chennai-600001
and its inter alia branch at Ramasamy Avenue,
Vannandurai, Chennai.
2. M/s. Coopers Concept Foundation Pvt. Ltd.,
No.38, Rameswaram Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai-17.
3. Mrs. P.S.Jayalakshmi
4. Mrs. P.J. Sujatha
...Respondents
1/6
OP.No.634 of 2018
PRAYER: Original Petition is filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 praying to set aside the Award of Sole Arbitrator Shri.C.A.Ravichandiran the constituent of Arbitration Tribunal at Chennai vide.A.C.P.No.(EF/CAR) 287/2016 dated 9.01.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Manoharan
For Respondent : Mr. K.V. Anantha Krishnan for R1
O R D E R
The respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal is the petitioner before this Court. The OP is filed challenging the Award dated 09.01.2017.
The petitioner herein had borrowed a loan from the first respondent financial company to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. The said sum was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,45,600/- each commencing from 10.09.2012. The terms of the agreement clearly stipulate that in the event of a default, the default amount would carry
2/6
OP.No.634 of 2018
additional interest at the rate of 3 per cent per month. The petitioner has cleared few instalments, however ultimately there has been a default and as on the date of invoking the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner herein was due and owing Rs.13,10,400/- towards the principal and Rs.14,419/- towards overdue charges. The claimant therefore issued notice to the petitioner calling upon them to clear the said dues. However there was no response from the petitioner herein. Ultimately the first respondent claimant had issued the pre-arbitration notice dated 11.01.2016 and despite receiving the notice, the petitioner had not cared to either make the payment or respond, which led to the invoking of arbitration proceedings.
perusal of the procedural history contained in the Award would clearly show that all the four respondents/petitioner herein had been served
and they choose not to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal. Subsequently, they filed set aside petition on 2.5.2016, which was allowed on 21.5.2016. Again they remained absent during further hearings. Therefore, they were again set ex parte on 8.8.2016. For
3/6
OP.No.634 of 2018
the second time they filed set aside petition, which was allowed. Even after this, they remained absent on several dates and ultimately for the third time they were set exparte on 08.11.2016 and the matter was adjourned for evidence. The respondent/claimant had filed necessary documents along with the proof of service of notice and consequently on perusing the same, the Award came to be passed. The Arbitral Award is challenged by the petitioner only on the ground that notice has not been served on them and that the amount claimed was not as per the statement of accounts passed on which the accounts were not correct. A perusal of the Award would clearly indicate that all the respondents have been served and even after such service the respondent/petitioner herein have chosen not to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal and that apart on two earlier occasions they have been set exparte and they had filed set aside petitions, which were allowed. However for the third time they remained absent and were set ex parte therefore they cannot contend that the Award was passed behind their back.
4/6
OP.No.634 of 2018
accounts, this court in a Section 34 Petition, cannot re-appreciate evidence unless a patent illegality is shown which in the instant case has not been pleaded. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the Award passed. Op is dismissed and the Award is confirmed.
27.02.2020
mrn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
To,
1. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Representative
Having Office at No.123, Angappan Naickan St,
Chennai-600001
and its inter alia branch at Ramasamy Avenue,
Vannandurai, Chennai.
T. Nagar, Chennai-17.
5/6
OP.No.634 of 2018
P.T.ASHA, J.,
mrn
OP.No.634 of 2018
27.02.2020
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in absence of patently shown illegality?
Whether the award was passed ex parte without valid notice/evidence of service despite petitioner's earlier absences?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. V. Manoharan (Petitioner)
M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
M/s. Coopers Concept Foundation Pvt. Ltd.
Mrs. P.S.Jayalakshmi
Mrs. P.J. Sujatha
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
