VIJAYAKUMAR RAJU Vs. INDUS IND BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein were the respon-dents in the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator. THEse O.Ps. arise out of an award dated 5.12.2005 passed in the arbitral pro-ceedings where the petitioners are the same. THE petitioners in these O.Ps. are one and the same. THE facts are identical. THEy relate to hire purchase agreements entered into on 29.6.2002 for hire purchase of vehicles under different agreements. THE issues raised in all these O.Ps. are one and the same. Hence, a common order is passed. For the sake of con-venience, the facts in O.P.No,454 of 2006 alone is referred to herein.

(2.) THE first petitioner herein entered into a hire purchase agreement with the first re-spondent on 29.6.2002 for the purchase of ve-hicles. THE hire purchase charges under the agreement is stated to be Rs.4,50,000/- and finance charges of Rs.2,47,420/-, apart from in-surance premium of Rs.20,000/-, totalling to a sum of Rs.6,17,420/-. THE said sum was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments at Rs.18,070/- for the first installment and Rs.17,070/- from the 21st month to the 36th month commencing from 29.7.2002 to 29.5.2005. THE second petitioner is the guar-antor, guaranteeing prompt payment of the dues.

(3.) THE petitioner challenges the award on the ground of arbitrariness, opposed to public policy and vitiated by non-application of mind. Apart from this, the petitioner also contends that as the Arbitrator had not made a disclosure of his interest, as provided for un-der Section 12 of the Arbitration and Concili-ation Act, 1996, the award has to be set aside. THE petitioner contends that the requirement of Section 12 as to the Arbitrator declaring his neutrality is a non-derogable one. THE peti-tioner submitted that there existed justifiable doubts as to the impartiality and inde-pendence of the Arbitrator appointed unilater-ally by the first respondent. On merits, the petitioner submitted that the learned Arbitra-tor had failed to decide as to how the first re-spondent was entitled to the amount claimed. THE petitioner also pointed out that there were variations in the calculation between the amount claimed in the claim petition and in the statement. Consequently, both in the as-pect of non-application of mind as well as the non-disclosure of disclaimer of interest as provided under Section 12 of the Act, the award is liable to be set aside.