Dismissed

Samay Pal & Anr. v. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Aug 2016CR/5520/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order in a revision petition dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding a reduced execution award. The court held that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for vehicle release without explicit 'full and final settlement' wording does not constitute a valid ground for interference. The revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order allowing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 remains intact.

Samay Pal & Anr. Vs Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd. & Anr. — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CR No.5520 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.5520 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2016

¶5

Sh. Samay Pal and another

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd and another ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved of the dismissal of the objections under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”) on the premise that once 'No Objection Certificate' had been issued by the Finance Company to the Registering Authority for releasing the vehicle from the charge of hypothecation tantamounts to settling the entire dispute, i.e., less than the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, vide award dated 11.06.2015, granted a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,34,463/- along with interest @ 2.5% per month but in the execution application, it was reduced to Rs.2,60,000/-. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexures P-7 and P-8 and thus, urges this Court for setting aside the impugned order.

¶13

Savita 2016.09.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶14

CR No.5520 of 2016 (O&M)

¶15

{2}

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and appraised the paper book and of the view that once the award is amounting to Rs.3,34,463/-, accordingly, NOC was issued to the Registering Authority to enable the sale of the vehicle and adjust the amount, which had already paid on 27.11.2015 which would not be treated as full and final settlement as there was no word “full and final settlement”.

¶17

No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶18

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 29, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶19

Savita 2016.09.06 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Samay Pal & Anr. v. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samay Pal & Anr. v. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Chopra Vs Sunil Kumar & Ors.

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna and Others

Kapoor Singh & Ors. Vs Kartar Kaur & Ors.

Ram Sarup & Anr. Vs Ami Lal & Anr.

Surinder Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Gindokhar Vs Dhanraj and Ors.