M MOHAN REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the constitutional vires of Sections 13(4) and 16(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is in question.

(2.) The 2nd respondent is a finance company and laid a claim before the 3rd respondent who is an Arbitrator (Hon'ble Sri Justice Kuppuswamy, a retired Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court). The claim relates to recovery of money said to be due on account of hire purchase agreement entered into by the writ petitioner herein. Two others, namely G. Jaganmohan Rao and Smt. Prathima Reddy are added as respondents, on the ground that they are the guarantors. Clause 15 of the agreement reads as follows:

(3.) Section 13 as a whole along with sub-sections reads: