Manmohan Singh JUDGMENT
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The Award was published in the above said matter on 3rd November, 2006. The objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were filed in January, 2012.
2. It was an ex parte Award. The petitioner submits that he did not receive the notice of commencement of the arbitration proceedings nor he was aware about the passing of the Award in 2006.
3. Before dealing with the submissions of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer few facts of the case which are that the petitioner along with respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "borrowers") approached the respondent No. 1 for grant of loan against property for the purpose of their business. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned the loan facility to the borrowers vide Home Loan Agreement reference No. 3669369 executed between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner along with respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. borrowers on 28th June, 2004 to the tune of Rs. 47,00,000/- which was repayable in 144 monthly equated installments (EMI) of Rs. 61,732/- each.
4. The home loan agreement was duly signed by all the borrowers including the petitioner and his property was mortgaged with the respondent No. 1 against security for aforesaid loan. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 disbursed the loan amount to Punjab National Bank in the account of respondent No. 4 i.e. the partnership firm and the title documents of property belonging to the petitioner were handed over to respondent No. 1 by Punjab National Bank. However, subsequently, the borrowers failed to pay the EMIs and committed default in repayment as per the terms of the aforesaid Agreement. Hence, disputes arose between respondent No. 1 and the borrowers.
5. The mortgage loan involved in the present case has been assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited by the respondent No. 1 and this Court vide its order dated 12th December, 2012 had struck off respondent No. 1 from array of parties and substituted Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in place of respondent No. 1.
6. Admittedly, the original lender, i.e. Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "CCFIL") through its Advocate sent Notice-cum-Reference letter in respect of the aforesaid loan agreement on 28th June, 2006 wherein it was categorically stated that if the demanded amount of Rs. 37,26,143.72/- outstanding as on 24th June, 2006 is not liquidated within 30 days of receipt of the notice, disputes will be decided by the sole Arbitrator Mr.S.K. Jain, Advocate, as per terms and conditions of loan agreement for adjudication of disputes between the parties.
7. The aforesaid Notice-cum-Reference letter was duly served upon the borrowers through Registered Post/AD and UPC on their correct addressees.
8. The petitioner through his Advocate sent reply letter dated 26th July, 2006 and duly acknowledged the Notice-cum-reference letter dated 28th June, 2006 sent by CCFIL and contended that the matter could not be referred to Arbitrator. A copy of the aforesaid reply was also addressed to the sole Arbitrator.
9. It is admitted by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 is the partnership firm, in which the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 were the parties. All relevant documents were signed by the said parties. The petitioner has not denied his signatures on the documents as well as the factum of being partner in the partnership firm.
10. As the borrowers did not liquidate the outstanding amount, CCFIL filed its statement of claim dated 9th August, 2006 along with relevant documents before the sole Arbitrator who issued notice to all borrowers on various occasions.
11. The respondent No. 2 appeared in person along with his counsel who also represented respondents No. 3 and 4 on first day of appearance.........