High Court Of Delhi
MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
S.NIRPAL SINGH - Respondent
Decided On : 01/18/2002
Arbitration - Hire Purchase Agreement - Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 20
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for filing the hire purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause and for reference of the disputes to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjeet Gulati, Advocate. The respondents failed to pay the hire instalments as per the agreement, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The hire purchase agreement with an arbitration clause was proved, and the court found that the respondents were in default for not paying the hire instalments despite notice. The court also determined that the arbitration proceedings would be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issues: The issues involved the non-payment of hire instalments, the validity of the arbitration clause, and the applicable arbitration law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the arbitration proceedings would be governed by the arbitration law existing at the time of the appointment of the arbitrator, as per the agreement.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjeet Gulati, Advocate, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 20 of the arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner seeks a direction for filing of the hire purchase agreement dated 8 April 1991, containing the arbitration clause and for reference of the disputes, which are stated to have arisen between the parties, to the sole arbitration of shri Inderjeet Gulati, Advocate.
( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts, giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are: that the petitioner is engaged in the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. In April 1991, respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as the guarantor, approached the petitioner for hiring of a Tata diesel truck model 1991. Accepting the proposal, the petitioner and the respondents entered into a hire purchase agreement 8/04/1991 whereby respondent No. 1 agreed to pay 35 instalments of hire money (20 hire instalments of rs. 10,300/-each and 15 hire instalments of Rs. 10,200. 00 each) falling due on the 7th day of each month, beginning from 7/06/1991. Respondent No. 1 was accordingly given delivery/possession of the said vehicle.
( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 however, paid only a sum of rs. 1,01,300/- towards hire money as against the sum of rs. 3,38,600/-and Rs. 20,600. 00 towards compensation expenses as against Rs. 1,11,592. 00, which were payable as on 1/02/1994 as per the hire purchase agreement, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 2,37,300. 00 payable as hire money, and Rs. 90,992. 00 as incidental expenses, making a total of Rs. 3,28,292, due to the petitioner from the respondents.
( 4 ) HAVING failed to realise the said amount the petitioner company sent a registered notice, dated 25/01/1994, to the respondents, terminating the hire of the said vehicle and called upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,379. 00 being the total of the hire money, interest on overdue instalments and incidental expenses, calculated upto 25/01/1994 and to return the said vehicle to the petitioner. The respondents were warned that if they fail to pay the said amount forthwith the petitioner will take appropriate steps. to enforce its rights against the respondents under the said agreement by way of arbitration or Otherwise. However, there was no response from the respondents. Hence the present petition.
( 5 ) THE respondents remained un-represented despite service. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex parte and, the petitioner was required, to prove their case by adducing evidence by way of affidavit. The requisite affidavit has been filed by shri Mool Chand Gupta, Accountant of the petitioner company. Along with the affidavit, the aforenoted hire purchase agreement, Ex. PW-2/1 has also been filed.
( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
( 7 ) THE hire purchase agreement dated 8/04/1991, entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, stands proved. The agreement also reflects the amounts due to the petitioner on various dates. Obviously, the respondents are in default in not paying the hire instalments in terms of the said. agreement. They failed to pay these instalments despite service of notice dated 25/01/1994. Therefore, the disputed have arisen between the parties. in terms of the hire purchase agreement.
( 8 ) HIRE purchase agreement contains an arbitration clause, which reads as under:
"clause VI- (a ). All disputes, differences, and/or, claims, arising out of this hire purchase agreement, inclusive of non-payment of hire amount or other dues payable by the hirer/hirers and guarantor/guarantors to the owners shall be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be REFERRED TO to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjeet gulati, Advocate, Delhi or in case of his death, refusal, ne. glect, incapability to act as an arbitrator to the sole arbitration of shri D. L. Bhargava, Advocate, Delhi. The reference to the Arbitrator shall be within the clauses, terms and conditions of this agreement
REFERRED TO : Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.