INDIA CEMENTS CAPITAL LIMITED Vs. WILLIAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award made in favour of the revision petitioner under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act") was sought to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"). At the instance of a third party to the arbitral proceedings, the Court held that the award is a nullity and hence unenforceable. Insofar as the revision petitioner is concerned, that was a bolt from the blue. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner challenges the order on EA No. 379 of 2013 in EP No. 412 of 2011 in Arbitration OP No. 10 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam on the ground that invocation of S.47 of the Code by the Court below was erroneous and opposed to law. According to the revision petitioner, except by way of taking a recourse against the award under S.34 of the Act, neither a party to the award nor a non - party can take a short cut under S.47 of the Code to challenge the virus of the award.

(2.) Heard Dr. George Abraham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, learned counsel for the first respondent.

(3.) Brief facts relevant for appreciating the rival contentions are as follows: Revision petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of extending financial assistance to prospective customers. It is a non banking finance company. Second respondent requested the revision petitioner to finance for purchase of a vehicle. Accordingly, the revision petitioner extended a hire purchase finance facility to the second respondent with the third respondent as guarantor. An agreement was executed on 29/07/1998. Respondents 2 and 3 provided security to the revision petitioner, for prompt repayment of the hire purchase installments under the agreement, by creating an equitable mortgage over their property comprising 72 cents of land. Thereafter, respondents 2 and 3 made defaults in repaying the amounts. Therefore, the revision petitioner caused to issue a legal notice demanding the respondents to pay off the liability. Since they did not settle the claims, the revision petitioner invoked Clause 21(a) and (b) of the hire purchase agreement, whereby the parties had agreed to settle all the disputes, differences and / or claims under the agreement by arbitration. Accordingly an arbitrator was appointed. In the claim petition, following prayers are made by the revision petitioner: