LAWS(KER)-2012-10-148

BELHOUSE ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD Vs. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD

Decided On October 15, 2012
BELHOUSE ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD Appellant
V/S
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARBITRATRAL proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent against appellants and the 2nd respondent (deleted from party array) in this appeal on the ground that as per clause 15 (a) of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the parties agreed that the dispute/claim under the agreement will be settled by arbitration. Pursuant to the alleged power conferred on the Managing Director of the 1st respondent Company under the term of contract, the 3rd respondent (deleted from party array) in this appeal was appointed as the sole arbitrator. An arbitration award was passed directing the appellants and the 2nd respondent to jointly and severally pay a certain amount with interest to the 1st respondent herein.

(2.) IN the meantime, the 1st respondent had also filed O.P. (Arb) 43/1995 under Section 41(b) of the Act against appellants and 2nd respondent herein before the lower court for an order of injunction restraining the 2nd appellant herein from disposing of or otherwise alienating or creating any encumbrance over the petition scheduled property till a valid award is passed by the arbitrator and decree is passed thereof etc. He also sought for an order of interim attachment of the petition scheduled property till the 1st respondent realises the decree amount.

(3.) A direction was issued to Arbitrator by the court and the Arbitrator filed the award before the court pursuant to a direction by the court. Appellants also filed I.A No.5436/99 in O.P. (Arb) 23/96 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act to set aside the award filed in O.P.(Arb) 23/96. The main contention raised by appellant was that the arbitration agreement is void. According to appellants, there were financial dealings between the appellants and the respondent-company in liquidation, but they had not entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.10.1992 in respect of the vehicle referred to in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. According to appellants, 1st respondent got signatures of the petitioners in many blank stereo typed forms and those were converted into agreements and guarantee paper by filling the blank to the convenience of respondents.