SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 573

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
P. DHANDAPANI – Appellant
Versus
MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD – Respondent


SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with the respondent in respect of compactor-cum-dryer machines on 28. 06. 96. The said hire purchase agreement is not available on record but a payment schedule dated 01. 03. 1996 has been placed on record which shows that the price of the equipment was 10,40,000/- and it was financed to the extent of Rs 9,26,000/- in 36 instalments of Rs 26,000. The agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause and since the petitioner, after availing of the said loan facility against hire purchase of the machinery, failed to pay the instalments, the dispute was referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Inderjit Gulati. The arbitrator made and published his award on 01. 04. 2001 and the petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ).

( 2 ) IT may be noticed that the petitioner refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. It is stated that some communications were addressed to the arbitrator objecting to the jurisdiction but the petitioner did not take any steps to fil























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top