Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO No.127/2013 & CM No. 4095/2013 12th March, 2014
MALA PURI ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh and Ms. Roshan Ara Khan, Adv.
Through: Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. for R-1 alongwith Sandeep Mehta, Manager of R-1.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. On 24.2.2014 the following order was passed:-
1. Counsel for the respondent No.1 wants to take instructions from the bank in view of the fact that rates of interest charged pre-litigation are 37% per annum and Award grants interest @ 18% per annum, and both of which rates are prima facie against the public policy and the ratio of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Pandit Munshi Ram Associates Vs. DDA 2010 (3) Arb. Law Reporter 284. I may also note that it is not known whether the 2014:DHC:1379 pre-litigation interest of 37% per annum is with monthly rest or quarterly rest or so on.
2. List on 12th March, 2014.
2. Though counsel for the respondent says he has instructions that respondent is agreeable to the observations in the above order dated 24.2.2014. Today most surprisingly, counsel for the appellant has done a Uturn clearly indicating the lack of bonafide intentions on the part of the appellant for repaying the credit card dues towards the respondent. It may be noted that the present appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the impugned judgment of the court below dated 4.1.2013 which has dismissed the objections filed by the appellant/objector against the ex parte Award dated 20.5.2011. Ex parte Award was passed for a sum of Rs.7,30,640.14 alongwith interest at 18% per annum w.e.f 25.8.2010 inasmuch as appellant failed to appear in spite of notice.
3. The relevant para of the court below dealing with the aspect of service is para 10 and which reads as under:-
4. It is therefore clear that the appellant who has taken benefit of credit card facility given by the respondent-bank, does not want to pay the dues as payable in law. I cannot look into any aspects on merits inasmuch as all aspects of merits had to be necessarily urged in the arbitration proceedings, and which the appellant failed to do by not appearing in the arbitration proceedings. Merits of the matter i.e defences on merits cannot be urged in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, which is to be decided on the basis of the record of the arbitrator.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 12, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib