Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 91 (DEL)

MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE v. MANORANJAN SINGH

1987-02-19

N.C.KOCHHAR

body1987
N. C. Kochhar ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the Motor and General Finance Ltd. (the petitioner) stating the Manoranjan Singh, respondent No. 1. had taken on hire from the petitioner a motor vehicle bearing Engine No. 692. D 01. 1. 19205, Chassis No. 344. 073. 1. 12397 and registration No. BHU 8821 under hire purchase agreement dated 7th November, 1981 and had paid a sum of Rs. 32,167. 57 and had agreed to pay the monthly instalments of Rs. 6,600. 00 for 33 months and thereafter two monthly instalments of Rs. 6,500. 00 each for 34th and 35th months and if he had paid the instalments, he would have the option to purchase the vehicle but in case of default, tlie vehicle had to be returned to the petitioner along with hire money them due. It has further been stated that Uday Pratap Singh, respondent No. 2, was guarantor of respondent No. 1 for due performance of the terms of the contract. It has further been pleaded that the contract between the parties contained clause no. 6 according to which all disputes and differences arising out of the hire purchase agreement would be settled by arbitration and would be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Shashi Vanshi Bahadur, Advocate, Delhi or in case of his death,refusal, neglect, incapability to act as an arbitrator, to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate. ( 2 ) IT has been stated that the respondents failed to pay the instalments and have also failed to return the vehicle and have disputed the right of the petitioner to claim any amount or to claim the possession of the vehicle and as such disputes have arisen. A sum of Rs. 2,83,185. 00is stated to be due to the petitioner from the respondents on account of hire money, compensation for late payment and the value of the vehicle. In these circumstances it has been prayed that the hire purchase agreement dated 7th November, 1981 between the parties be filed in court and the disputes be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Shashi Vanshi Bahadur, Advocate. ( 3 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents who did not appear inspite of service and as such were proceeded against ex parte. ( 3 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondents who did not appear inspite of service and as such were proceeded against ex parte. ( 4 ) I have heard Mrs, Mamta Mehra, counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. ( 5 ) VIDE order dated l5th May, 1986 the petitioner was given liberty to produce evidence by way of affidavits. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has fild affidavit of Shri K. N. Wahal, general attorney of the petitioner company. In the affidavit it has been stated that the original hire purchase agreement dated 7th November, 1981 is not traceable in the office of the petitioner and it appears to have been lost during the time the office of the petitioner was shifted from Asaf Ali Road to Darya Ganj. Photostate copy of the agreement has been filed. ( 7 ) I have been shown an office copy of the hire purchase agreement which is stated to be duly signed by the respondents as also on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. Mehra states that the office copy of the agreement was signed by the parties at the same time when the original hire purchase agreement duly stamped was signed by the respondents and the petitioner. Copy of the statement of account filed shows that the amounts are due from the resondents. ( 8 ) A perusal of the hire purchase agreement shows that these is an arbitration clause between the parties and according to it, the disputes between the parties have to be referred to the arbitration of Shri Shashi Vans Bahadur,advocate or in the event of his death, refusal, neglect, incapacity act to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate. The disputes are regarding non-payment of the hire money, compensation for late payment and non-return of the vehicle to the petitioner and they arise out of the hire purchase agreement. ( 9 ) IN the result I allow this petitioner and direct that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court. I appoint Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. ( 9 ) IN the result I allow this petitioner and direct that the arbitration agreement between the parties be filed in court. I appoint Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. ( 10 ) THE arbitrator will give his award within a period of four months from the date of his entering upon the reference or within such time which may be extended with the consent of the parties or under the orders of the court. ( 11 ) SINCE the respondents have not contested this petition, there will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) AS prayed, a copy of this order be sent to the arbitrator. ( 13 ) SUIT No. 1254-A of 1985 stands disposed of.