SUNIL KUMAR SINGHAL SON OF SRIRAM SINGHAL AND SRI RAM SINGHAL SON OF LALA VISHAMBHAR SAHAI Vs. VINOD KUMAR SON OF LALA GOPI CHAND, PROPRIETOR, VINOD FINANCER
LAWS(ALL)-2007-12-198
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 14,2007

Sunil Kumar Singhal Son Of Sriram Singhal And Sri Ram Singhal Son Of Lala Vishambhar Sahai Appellant
VERSUS
Vinod Kumar Son Of Lala Gopi Chand, Proprietor, Vinod Financer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order dated 6 -4 -1985 passed by Civil Judge III Meerut in O.S. No. 310 of 1978.
(2.) VINOD Kumar the respondent herein, filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute having arisen between the parties to an arbitrator as per the arbitration Clause incorporated in hire purchase agreement dated 23 -5 -1975. The application was filed on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is carrying on finance business under the name and style of 'M/S Vinod Financier' in proprietorship. He advanced a sum of Rs. 36,000/ - as finance to the defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the hire purchase agreement dated 23 -5 -1975. Sri Ram Singhal the appellant No. 2 herein, stood gurantor for repayment of the loan. The money was to be repaid in 24 monthly installments of Rs. 1,500/ -. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 failed to repay the amount as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement. Consequently, he sought to refer the dispute to the sole Arbitrator, Prem Shanker Kapoor, Advocate or his nominee, but the defendant No. 1 refused to accept Sri Ram Shanker Kapoor as Arbitrator. Hence, the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed. The defendant No. 1 contested the said application for appointment of Arbitrator on the pleas inter alia that no hire purchase agreement between the parties exists. He came out with the case that the plaintiff obtained signatures on some blank papers and denied the plaint allegations and submitted that the alleged vehicle, which was subject matter of hire purchase agreement, has been transferred to one Devendra Sharma who is a man of the plaintiff.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the defendants executed the agreement deed in suit? 2. Whether any dispute has arisen between the parties? If so its effect? 3. Whether the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the firm? 4. Plaintiffs relief?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.