K. PALANI Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed assailing an 'arbitral award dated 05.11.2019 bearing reference Arbitration Case No.5 of 2019' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity) made by a sole Arbitrator who constituted the 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Captioned OP has been presented in this Court on 06.01.2020 and therefore, applying the Ssangyong principle or in other words law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs. National Highways Authority of India , 2019 15 SCC 131, captioned OP will be governed by post 23.10.2015 regime of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience. To be noted, captioned OP is an application under Section 34 of A and C Act assailing the impugned award.

(3.) Today in a web-hearing on a video-converencing platform Mr.D.Bharathy, learned counsel on record for two petitioners is before me. Learned counsel submits that there is no disputation that the petitioners have taken Rs.10 lakhs loan from the respondent (lone respondent in captioned OP) agreeing to repay the same in 60 'Equated Monthly Installments' ('EMIs' in plural and 'EMI' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity). Learned counsel submits that the issue turns on the rate of interest and quantum of EMI. According to learned counsel, while the loan has been availed by the petitioners for construction of a house, it has been classified as a business loan. In this view of the matter , learned counsel submits that the EMI ought not have been Rs.26,500/- (Rs.26,494/- to be precise), but it should have been Rs.18,000/-. It was also pointed out that in this regard, legal notice dated 24.11.2017 was sent to the respondent. In this regard, photocopies of this legal notice and postal receipt have been placed before me as part of the case file. There is no disputation that the respondent acceded to the request and reduced the EMI, but the EMI was not reduced to Rs.18,000/- as sought for by the petitioners and it was reduced to Rs.20,500/-.