Karuppayah Piraman v. Phoenix Asset Reconstruction

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE O.P. No.234 of 2014 In the matter of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 between Phoenix Aset Reconstructions Company Private Limited and Karuppayah Piraman Karuppayah Piraman-70 years, S/o.Piraman, 8/2, Krishna Villas Pertho Street, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014.

... Petitioner -Versus1. Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 7th Floor, Dani Corporate Park, 158, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz(e), Mumbai-400 098 acting in its capacity as the trustee of Phoenix Trust FY 13-1 scheme C

2. Mr.Prakashi Kashinath Husing (Retired Judge), Shop No.4, Durgachaya Apartment, Navghar, 1st lane Mulund (E), Mumbai-400 081.

... Respondents Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the award dated 30.12.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent in Phoenix-Barclays/PI/Lots/27/2013. This Original Petition coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.V.Kadhirvelu, advocate for the petitioner herein and respondents 1 & 2 herein not appearing in person or by advocate and upon reading the petition and the award dated 30.12.2013 filed herein, and this Court observing that no document has been produced by the petitioner to dispute the claim made by the

first respondent against the petitioner, the details of the payments made by the petitioner to the first respondent has also not been given in the instant petition and from these facts it is made clear that the petitioner is a defaulter under the loan agreement with the first respondent and therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the instant petition filed by the petitioner and the scope of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is very limited, unless and until the findings of the Arbitrator are perverse, arbitrary, illogical or irrational, this Court cannot interfere under Section 34 of the Act and this Court finds no perversity or patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, and this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, it is ordered as follows:- That the O.P. No.234 of 2014 be and is hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no costs.

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2018.

Sd./- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(O.S.II) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2018. COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

KLY 11.08.2018 O.P. No.234 of 2014

ORDER

DATED: 24.07.2018 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE FOR APPROVAL:13/08/2018 APPROVED ON:14/08/2018