Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 137 (DEL)

MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED v. T. MOHAN

1987-03-13

N.C.KOCHHAR

body1987
N. C. Kochhar ( 1 ) THIS application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by The Motor and General Finance Ltd. (the petitioner) stating that T. Mohan (respondent No. 1) had taken on hire from the petitioner motor vehicle registered as TMT 7099, Engine No. 692-D02-1-36993 and chassis No. 341-052-1-29871 under hire purchase agreement dated 7th June 1982 and respondent No. 2 guaranteed due performance of the terms of the said agreement. It is stated that in accordance with terms of the agreement, respondent No. 1 had agreed to pay monthly instalment of Rs. 6360. 00 each for 35 months by 7th of each English calendar month and had also agreed to pay compensation charges and incidental expenses for defaults and late payment and in this way he had to pay Rs. 2,22,600. 00 by way of hire in 35 instalments. It is stated that respondent No. 1 had paid only a sum of Rs. 43,980. 00 towards hire money and a sum of Rs. 14,455. 60 towards compensation charges and a sum of Rs. 1,78,620. 00is due from him towards overdue hire charges and a sum of Rs. 18,370. 40 is due from the respondents for late payment and other incidental charges. It has been pleaded that vide clause No. VI in the said agreement, the parties had agreed that in the event of disputes, the matter would be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate or in the event of his refusal or inability to act as an arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Krishan Jain, Advocate, Delhi. It is stated that the following disputes have arisen between the parties: (I) "the amount of hire due and payable to the petitioner from the respondents. (ii) The payment towards compensation charges due to the late payment of hire money and other incidental charges including damages caused to the said vehicle. (iii) To determine extent of liability of the respondent No. 2 being a guarantor. "it has been prayed that the disputes be referred to the arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi. ( 2 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 did not appear inspite of service and was proceeded against exparte. (iii) To determine extent of liability of the respondent No. 2 being a guarantor. "it has been prayed that the disputes be referred to the arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi. ( 2 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 did not appear inspite of service and was proceeded against exparte. Respondent No. 1 appeared in this court on 27th November 1986 and made a statement to the effect that he had no objection to the matter in dispute being referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate but prayed that he be allowed to file his counter claim before the said arbitrator and vide statement dated 27th November, 1986, Shri K. L. Bhendwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, agreed to the same. ( 3 ) EVIDENCE has been led in the form of affidavit. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Shri A K. Ahluwalia, who is general attorney of the petitioner, and has produced on record the copy of hire purchase agreement. ( 4 ) FROM the above said evidence, I am satisfied that respondent No. 1 had taken on hire from the petitioner motor vehicle under hire purchase agreement dated 7th June, 1982 and had to pay 35 instalments of Rs. 6360. 00 each; the first instalment to be paid on 7th August, 1982 and the subsequent ones to be paid on or before 7th of each succeeding month. ( 5 ) AFTER persuing clause VI of the agreement, lam satisfied that the parties had agreed to refer their disputes to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate or in case of his refusal or inability to act as an arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Krishan Jain, Advocate. I am also satisfied that the disputes mentioned in para 8 of the petition have been raised by the petitioner and arise between the parties. The said disputes are covered by the arbitration agreement. Mr. Bhendwal states that although he had agreed that the disputes, if any, to be raised by respondent No. 1 be also adjudicated upon by the arbitrator, there is no objection to the arbitrator dealing with the disputes if any, to be raised by respondent No 2 as well. ( 6 ) IN the result, I allow the petition and direct that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court. ( 6 ) IN the result, I allow the petition and direct that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court. The disputes mentioned above as also those which might be raised by. the respondents and which are covered by the arbitration agreement, are referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Chamber No. 23, Tehsil Building, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi who would give his award within four months from the date of his entering upon the reference or within such time which might be extended with the consent of the parties or under the orders of the court. ( 7 ) A copy of this order be sent to the arbitrator. Suit No. 899-A of 1985 stands disposed of.