s c1 80 1 Fa0 No670 of 2010 lO8MI INTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FeAe01670 of 2010 1OSMI 1 0 Date of Decision2 April 20110 1 0 I C5 Shiv Dayal and another Appella nts Z Versus Mlse Induslnd Bank Limited and others Respondents I z CORAM HONBLE MRUSTICE MOHINDER PAL rio l Whether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment7 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not 7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 Z r Presentl Mr RS Mamli Advocate for the appellants MOHINDER PAL Oe The appellants are aggrleved agalnst the orderljudgment dated 1132010 passed by the District Judge Yamuna Nagar at Jagadh ri whereby a ppiication fi Ied by the a ppelIants under Secon 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act9 for setting Aside the arbitral award dated 1922007 has been dismissed Batra Amit 2013.04.14 01: 03 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 81 1 2 1 AeOe Noa1670 of 2010 tO8M1 4t a After hearing the iearned cou nsel for the a ppelIants a nd going through the records of the case I do not see any reason which may warrant interference in the impugned order passed by the Iearned District Judge Mls Induslnd Bank Limited lereinafter referred to as the Bank had to recover its amount from the 1 C appellants in respect of the Ioan availed by the appellantNo l 0 from the Ashok Leyland Finance Limited which had mergedwith the 0 Bank with effect from 1 A2003 This Ioan was availed by the I 9 appellant No1 for the purchaseof vehicleTUSKER SUPER 2214 and appellant No2 had stood guarantee for appellant No 1 The vehicle Z was used by appellant No 1 as a borrower subject to the terms and 0 conditions of the Ioan agreement Appellant No2 had executed the agreementas a guarantor in respectof all Iiabilities of appellant No1e I The appelIants did not pay insta 1ments of the Ioan mon ey reg u Iarly Z and made several defaults The vehicle was repossessedby the Bank as riOper the clause in the Ioan agreement due to the continued defaults from 7 Z the appellants After repossession of the vehicle the Bank had sent r 4 Ietters to the appellantsfor the settlement of the dues but to no eHect Hence the vehicle was sold by the Bank therebysuffering a Ioss of Rs2311451e for which amount reference was made to the Arbitrator as per terms and condition of the Ioan agreement The appellantsdid not choose to appear before the Arbitrator Whereas appellant Nol was duly served appellant No2 refused to accept service The Arbitrator had accordinglyannounced an award for Rs2311451 besides interest Arbitrators fee and costs etc in favour of the Bank So far as interest part IS concerned it may be mentioned here that it keeps on changing as per the fiscal policiesof the Government framed from time to time BesideS Since execution proceedings are pending before the Court Batra Amit 2013.04.14 01: 03 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 8 F 3 be and Warra Of of the Court to ln Pect Pass Sh havebeen Of the COUId 0 SSue it Will be With not be as regard Proper how Out to for this QV the r4w bythe teres 5 hatit at this Was Passedbythe Insel Stage 0 can be On alse for the C 0Unci Or Was Judge Withthe not 0 Order No fault eer by 11 the 4V e April P5 2011 lr e1 ZW C 1 7 Q JUo P4 42 CQ cr A Q t IyVl J Il 7 r Batra Amit 2013.04.14 01: 03 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document