Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 205 (DEL)

MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED v. SAHDEO SINGH

1992-04-01

MOHD.SHAMIM

body1992
Mohd. Shamim ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for issue of a direction for filing the hire purchase agreement dated May 31, 1985 containing the arbitration clause and for referring the disputes arising out of the said agreement to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Kishan Jain Advocate. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the present petition are as under : That the petitioner is a registered company registered under the Companies Act with its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The petitioner carries on the business of hire-purchase of the motor vehicles in different parts of the country. Shri K. N Wahal is the general attorney of the petitioner and as such is competent and authorised to file and institute suits and to sign and verify the pleadings. The petitioner in due course of its business purchased a motor vehicle bearing Engine No. 682. DO 1. 7. 65458, Chassis No. 344. 073. 7. 62420 from M/s. TELCO for a consideration of Rs. 1,66,796 and hired out the same to respondents No. 1 and 2 as the joint hirers under a hire purchase agreement dated May 31, 1983. The said agreement was for a total consideration of Rs. 2,40,796 which included chassis valued at Rs. 1,66,796, hire charges Rs. 66,500 and insurance for second and third years Rs. 8,500. The respondents No. 1 and 2 at the time of the hire purchase agreement paid a sum of Rs. 25,796 by way of initial payment leaving a balance of Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid in 29 monthly hire purchase instalments i. e. , first four instalments of Rs. 7,500 each and the remaining 25 instalments of Rs. 7,400 each with effect from August 1, 1983 as per Schedule b to the said hire purchase agreement besides the payment of compensation charges for late payment of hire instalments and other incidental expenses for insurance and other expenses as per terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement. Respondent No. 3 signed the said hire purchase agreement as a guarantor for and on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and his liabilities were co-extensive with that of Respondent No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 signed the said hire purchase agreement as a guarantor for and on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and his liabilities were co-extensive with that of Respondent No. 1 and 2. The petitioner and the respondents agreed to refer all the disputes arising out of the said hire purchase agreement to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate vide Clause 6-A of the said hire purchase agreement. In case of the refusal or inability of Shri Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate to act as an arbitrator in that eventuality the disputes were to be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjeet Gulati, Advocate. The petitioner company is the sole and absolute owner of the abovesaid vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement and the respondents No. 1 and 2 in possession of the said vehicle only as trustees and bailees holding the said vehicle for and on behalf of the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the hire instalments as per the terms of the abovesaid agreement. A sum of Rs. 1,15,000 is due to the petitioner from the respondents towards the hire money and a sum of Rs. 1,17,655 towards compensation charges for late payment. The petitioner requested the respondents to comply with all the terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement but they refused and neglected to do the same. On account of the defaults and the breach of the agreement on the part of the respondents disputes have thus arisen in between the parties and thus the same are liable to be referred to the named arbitrator. Hence arose the necessity for the institution of the present petition. ( 3 ) THE respondents did not put in any contest and the petition proceeded ex parte against them. ( 4 ) THE petitioner have filed an affidavit sworn by one Rajiv Gupta director of the petitioner company. Shri Gupta through his abovesaid affidavit has reiterated all the above averments made in the petition. The petitioner have also placed on record the certificate of incorporation of the petitioner company vide Ex. Public witness 1/1. Ex. Public witness 1/2 is the power of attorney in favour of Shri K. N. Wahal to institute the present petition. Ex. Public witness 1/3 is the hire purchase agreement. Ex. The petitioner have also placed on record the certificate of incorporation of the petitioner company vide Ex. Public witness 1/1. Ex. Public witness 1/2 is the power of attorney in favour of Shri K. N. Wahal to institute the present petition. Ex. Public witness 1/3 is the hire purchase agreement. Ex. Public witness 1/4 is the copy of the statement of account. There is absolutely nothing to rebut the above testimony as the respondents have not put in and contest. ( 5 ) THE petitioner are thus entitled to succeed. The petition is allowed with costs ex-parte against the respondents. All the disputes and claims mentioned in para 7 of the petition are hereby referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate. Shri Bal Kishan Jain, Advocate would make his award within the statutory period.