SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) AP No.122 of 2011 is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the award-debtor. AP No.770 of 2011 is the challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioning hirer says that the vehicle that formed the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties was forcibly taken possession of by the financier, sold within a few days without allowing the petitioner any opportunity to participate in the sale to ensure a better price therefor and a huge amount was thereafter claimed with penal interest and the like in the reference before a seemingly pliant arbitrator. The hirer makes out that the hirer had no opportunity to resist the forcible repossession of the vehicle and no chance to be adequately represented in course of the reference.
(2.) The hirer had carried a pre-award petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act complaining of the financier having taken forcible possession of the vehicle. It was discovered in course of such matter that the vehicle was sold for Rs. 6.5 lakh. The Court order of September 14, 2010 recorded that despite notice the purchaser did not care to show up in Court. The Court regarded the disputes relating to alleged forcible repossession to be capable of being assessed in course of the reference and only required the amount said to have been received upon the resale of the vehicle to be deposited by the financier pending disposal of the reference. An appeal was preferred by the hirer but by the time the matter was taken up, an award had been passed in the reference. A copy of the award was made over by the financier to the hirer in course of the hearing of the appeal on January 12, 2011. The appeal was disposed of by leaving all questions open and by permitting the hirer to take whatever steps that were available to the hirer in accordance with law.
(3.) It appears that the hirer carried a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act to the City Civil Court on the hirer's understanding that since the award was for an amount less than Rs. 10 lakh, this Court had no authority to receive the challenge. The financier, however, denies complete knowledge of the proceedings filed before the City Civil Court. The hirer claims to have filed the petition before the City Civil Court on May 12, 2011. It subsequently dawned on the hirer that the challenge to the award had only to be made in this Court in view of Section 42 of the 1996 Act and AP No.770 of 2011 was filed on August 19, 2011. The hirer reckons the time to challenge the award runs from January 12, 2011.;