Mrs.R.S.Mallika v. Hdfc Bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.10.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Original Petition No.508 of 2017 and A.No.3756 of 2017 R.S.Mallika .. Petitioner Vs.

HDFC Bank Ltd., rep. By its Authorised Representative, No.110, 4th Floor, Ceebros Building, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 29.

.. Respondent Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator in A.C.P. (HDFC) No.593 of 2012 dated 17.09.2016. For Petitioner :

Mr.Nambi Arooran For Respondent :

No appearance

ORDER

Though the application is listed for hearing, by consent, the main

Original Petition is taken up for disposal.

2.The petitioner herein being a borrower has entered into a personal loan agreement with the respondent on 20.03.2012 for a total sum of Rs.2,40,000/-. In view of the non-payment of dues, the personal loan agreement was terminated by letter dated 01.10.2012. Thereafter, the respondent has invoked the arbitration clause. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner has stated that signatures have been obtained in the loan agreement and other documents apart from eight blank cheques. Though the first E.M.I. payment would start from 07.05.2012, the payment was made even prior to that. It is further stated that wrong deductions have been made by the respondent.

3.The learned Arbitrator took into consideration the clause containing arbitration in the loan agreement. Reliance has been made on Exs.A2 to A7. Ex.A7 is the statement of account indicating the default committed coupled with the payment due. Ex.A7 has not been seriously disputed or questioned by the petitioner. The deductions have been made towards transaction fees and the insurance premium.

4.The conduct of the petitioner was also commented upon by the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner, being an educated person and having signed the agreement, cannot contend to the contrary. The learned Arbitrator was not satisfied with the particulars contained in the statement of account.

5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to examine the witnesses. It is the case of illegal payment having been made. The petitioner did not say that no payment would be made. However, she questioned only the period of first E.M.I. 6.This Court is not inclined to accept the submission made. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has sought for any examination of the witnesses before the learned Arbitrator. The arbitral proceedings was initiated in the year 2012 but concluded only four years thereafter. The fact that the petitioner has executed an agreement under Ex.A3 is not in dispute. The liability is also not seriously questioned. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was desirous of examining herself or the respondent's

officials for the purpose of disputing the documents filed. There is no malafides raised against the officials of the respondent. It is a case of simple money transaction touching upon a personal loan given in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the award would show that the learned Arbitrator has considered all the documents available on record. It is not as if in all cases parties are required to be examined like that of the civil Court.

7.In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to exercise the power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by setting aside the award passed. Accordingly, the Original Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected application is closed.

11.10.2017 mmi

M.M.SUNDRESH,J.

mmi O.P.No.508 of 2017 11.10.2017