RAJAGOPALAN Vs. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the second respondent are the husband and wife. The second respondent sought for loan from the first respondent under Ex.A1 dated 23.08.2011, for running a business, in which she is a Proprietrix of M/s Bardwaj Associates. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 stood as guarantors. Accordingly a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was sanctioned under Ex.A3.

(2.) The second respondent paid only 12 instalments and thus, committed default. A demand notice was issued on 25.07.2014 under Ex.A6. Despite the same, the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 did not make the payment. Thus, an arbitration clause was invoked by letter dated 03.09.2014. The letter sent to the second respondent was returned as unserved. The Tribunal thereafter issued arbitration notice to all the respondents. The notice sent to the petitioner and the first respondent were served. The notice sent to the third respondent was returned as "Refused" and the one sent to the fourth respondent was returned as "not known".

(3.) During the proceedings, the petitioner was represented by the counsel, who filed vakalath. There was also the counsel representing the second respondent, who undertakes to file vakalath. From 19.11.2014, the matter stood adjourned on numerous occasions at the instance of the petitioner and the second respondent. All these facts have been narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Award. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned on quite few occasions. Conveniently, the petitioner and the second respondent did not appear. Accordingly, they were set ex-parte along with others and thereafter, relying upon Exs.A1 to A8, an Award was passed. The aforesaid Award is sought to be predicated before this Court only by the petitioner, who was arrayed as the second respondent before the Tribunal.