GYAN CHAND Vs. INDIA LEASE DEVELOPMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. M. P. Nos. 298 and 299 of 2002 have been filed under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1996)for setting aside the same Award dated 12th June, 2002 passed by Sh. Suryakant singla, sole Arbitrator. It is pertinent to mention that both the petitioners are alleged guarantors under a vehicle Lease Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Lease Agreement) dated 30th November, 1996 by virtue of which a monetary loan was advanced by the respondent finance company.

(2.) MS. Nav Ratin Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner in O. M. P. No. 298 of 2002 submitted that the Lease Agreement dated 30th November, 1996 had been tampered with. In this connection, Ms. Chaudhary referred to the arbitration clause contained in the photocopy of the said Lease Agreement wherein it was stated that disputes between the parties shall be referred to sole Arbitration of Sh. Suryakant Singla and in the event of his refusal, neglect, death, incapability to act as an Arbitrator, the matter shall stand referred once again to the sole Arbitration of Sh. Suryakant Singla, Advocate. She pointed out that in the reply affidavit filed in this court by the respondent-claimant, it was stated that as Sh. Abhinav Vashisht was unable to adjudicate the disputes, they were referred to Sh. Suryakant Singla, Advocate for adjudication as an Arbitrator. She also referred to the Award wherein it had been stated by the Arbitrator that, "the claimant company referred the disputes that had arisen between them and the respondents to me, as the other named Arbitrator shri Abhinav Vashisht had expressed his inability to act as an Arbitrator. " She stated that the respondent-claimant had neither filed the letters appointing the first or the second Arbitrator nor Mr. Vashishts refusal to act as an arbitrator.

(3.) MS. Chaudhary further stated that even though the Arbitrator in his Award had observed that there was no blank in the aforesaid Lease Agreement, the photocopy of the said Lease Agreement produced by the respondent had a blank in clause No. 20 of the said Lease Agreement.