72 1 6 l 1 FA0a N01641 of 2010 f08M1 7 rj4 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 4 CHANDIGARH FAOe Noe1641 of 2010 108MI 1C 0 Date of Decision April 1 2011 0 I t5 SmteIndu Bala and another Appellants 1 Z Versus MIS Induslnd Bank Limited and others Iespondents r I Z CORAM HONBLE MRs OUSTICE MOHINDER PALe le Whether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see OO the judgment7 4t 2a To be referred tc the Reportersor not 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 Z Presentl Mr ReS Mamli Advocate C1m for the appellants MOHINDER PAL J The appellants are aggrieved against the dated 112010 passed by the District OudgeYamuna Nagar at Jagadhr whereby applicationfiled by the appellantsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 lereinafter referred to as the Act for setting Aside the arbitral award dated 1472007 has been dismissed 1 Rashmi 2013.04.14 01: 00 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 1 1 2 F011001641 of 2010 lOSMI 11 1 After hearing the Iearned counsel for the appellantsand going throughthe records of the case I do not see any reason which may warrant interference in the impugned order passedby the Iearned District ludge Mls Induslnd Bank Limited lereinafter referred to as the Bank had to recover its amount from the n appellants Ill respect of the Ioan availed by the appellantNol 0 from the Ashok LeylandFinance Limited which had mergedwith the 0 Bank with effect from 1A2003 This Ioan was availed by the I 0 appellant Noel for the purchaseoftruck and appellant Noe2 had I stood guarantee for appellant No The vehicle was used by the Cr Z appellants as borrowerlguarantorsubjectto the terms and conditions of the Ioan agreement Appellant No2 had executed the agreementas rt a guarantor In respectof all Iiabilities of appellantNoe1 Appellant I c0Nol is the wife of appellant No2 The appellants did not pay Z of the Ioan money regularlyand made several defaults The COvehicle was repossessed by the Bank as per the clause in the Ioan due to the continued defaults from the appellants After repossession of the vehicle the appellants failed to settle the tl accounts with the Bank The cheques issued by appellant No l towards repaymentof the Ioan amount had been dishonoured by the Bank when presentedfor payment Hence the vehicle was sold by the Bank therebysuffering Ioss for which reference was made to the Arbitrator as per terms and condition of the Ioan agreement The Arbitrator sent notices to the appellants enclosing therewith the statement of claim and other supportingdocuments as submitted by the Bank by registered post due which were not returned by the postal authorities Thereafter the Arbitrator againsent proceedingsconducted before him to the appellantsby registeredpost Rashmi 2013.04.14 01: 00 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 3 FleO11641 of 2010 lOSMl 1 1 due This notice sent by the Arbitrator had been received bank as unclaimed It shows that both the appellants1e borrower and guarantorbeing wife and husband respectively residing at the same address were either receivingthe mail or not accordingto their necessity It cannot therefore be said that the appellantswere not m aware of the proceedingsbefore the Arbitrator The action of the o appellants in not presentingtheir case before the Arbitrator was 0 with a view to defeat the objectof reference to the Arbitrator The I 9 Arbitrator had accordinglyannounced an award for Rs586A621 0e Rse4922551mwhich were found due from the appellants as per er Z statement of account and interest of Rs9420719besides Arbitrators r fee and costs etc in favour of the Bank So far as interest part IS tr concerned it may be mentioned here that it keeps on changing as per I c the fiscal policiesof the Government framed from time to time Besides Z since execution proceedingsare pendingbefore the Court below and COwarrants of attachment in respectof the immovable property of the have been issued it will not be proper for this Court to pass any fresh order with regard to interest at this stage Nothing could be pointedout by the Iearned counsel for the appellantsas to how the Award passed by the Arbitrator was not maintainable or that it was based on false or frivolous proceedingsNo fault therefore can be found with the impugnedorder passedbythe Iearned District Judge Dismissede Datedl April 2011 PALI 1 JUDGE 1 Rashmi 2013.04.14 01: 00 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document