IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

MADURAI

E.P.No. 62 / 2018
in
ACP. SSP SL No. 9 / 2013

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd .... Petitioner/ Claimant

VsB

1) K.Anand
2) J.Sivaraman
3) K.Vasantha …. Respondents/
Judgment Debtors

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 3

1) The Respondents are the judgment debtors in the alleged arbitration award in
ACP.No. 9 / 2013.

2) The respondent submits that they are agriculturist. They purchased a combined
harvester availing loan under hire purchase agreement no.ARAPASL11070001
dt: 31.10.2011 from the petitioner. Later the respondent repaid the loan
regularly. Meanwhile on 13.09.13 the said vehicle met with a fire accident and
damaged fully. The said vehicle was insured in M/s. Bharthi Axa General
Insurance company. Hence insurance claim was made to the Insurer. Being the
Hypothecated owners the claimant retained some documents and moreover loan
agreement and statement were not issued to the respondent, whereas the same
were demanded by the insurer. When the same was requested the claimant
refused to give and demanded to repay the loan fully. Due to which the
insurance claim was unable to get processed.

3) The respondent later the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.20743/2013

before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High court and managed to get
some documents. However again the given documents i.e. Loan Agreement and
Loan Statements were not in proper format as requested by the Insurer and
hence Writ Appeal in W.A.No. 677/2014 was filed, however the same was
disposed on 10.01.2018 stating that the documents issued already is sufficient
and Writ remedy cannot be availed for any further relief.
4) Meanwhile the claimant belatedly understood that only on successful claim
from the insurer the loan amount could be satisfied and hence approached the
claimant stating that they are ready to cooperate for the claim. They demanded
and obtained signature from the 1st respondent wherein the claimant agreed to
communicate with the insurer and agreed to satisfy the loan amount
prerogatively out of the insurance claim amount. Later the insurer and the
claimant interacted with each other and agreed to settle the loan due out of the
insurance claim.

5) Meanwhile in 2014 the arbitration proceedings summon dated 17.01.14 was

issued to the respondents to attend the arbitration proceedings in ACP.No.
9/2013 presided by the sole arbitrator Shri S.Prasad on 31.01.14 within the
campus of the claimant company. No prior communication regarding
appointment of arbitrator was communicated to the respondents. The claimant
attended the arbitration proceedings with the counsel Mr.N.Karthik kanna and
filed a Letter of Authorisation [Vakalat] and Statement of Preliminary objection
for non supply of Arbitration papers in compliance with Sec.24(3) of
Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996. Concurrently a true copies of the Letter
of Authorisation [Vakalat] and Statement of Preliminary objection was also
sent to the claimant address concurrently through the registered post.

6) The non supply of all the arbitration proceeding documents vitiates the
Arbitration proceedings. Even after the preliminary objection, the claimant
refused to give the copies to the respondents. Rather the completely suppressed
the presence of the parties and also refused to give the next adjournment date.
In the said manner the arbitration was completely biased. Since the Sec.24(3) of
Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996 which mandates the prior supply of all
the arbitration papers was violates, the entire arbitration proceedings is invalid.
As such the award passed has no legality.

7) Without intimating the adjournment and supplying the papers, the sole
Arbitrator said to have passed the Arbitration award on 11.08.2014. A
Photocopy of the Award alone was served upon the respondents. It is
mandatory to issue the certified copy of the Award to the respondent. In the
said way the Arbitration proceedings were conducted in fraudulent manner.
Without serving the certified copy of the Arbitration award, no legal effect
arises for the award.
 8) However the respondent filed a Sec.34 application to set aside the Arbitration
Award to the District court on 20.03.2015 itself the same was returned for non
producing the certified copy of the Award. Hence the non supply of the
certified copy of the award prejudices my right to file the appeal Arl.O.P
against the Award before the PDJ court. Now the claimant comes up with the
Execution proceedings upon the unlawfully obtained Arbitration Award. It is
pertinent to note that meanwhile the claimant settled his loan by taking the
undertaking to receive the insurance claim amount from the Insurer, hence the
respondent were in the bonafide belief that they satisfied their loan out of the
insurance claim which they are eligible in the capacity of the Hypothecated
owner. Hence the respondent is now constrained to re-present their Sec.34
application before the PDJ court and the same is in process.

9) Hence the respondent objects the legality of the Arbitration proceedings and
Arbitration Award Dt: 11.08.2014 and the respondent is yet to challenge the
Arbitration award shortly. Due to non supply of any of the papers to the
respondents, they are not in the position to defend the present petition. Hence
adequate time may be given to the respondent to defend them from the illegal
claim.

10) The respondent reserves their right to file additional counter in the present
proceedings

Hence the present execution petition E.P.No. 62/ 2018 in A.CP. SSP SL No. 9 /
2013is devoid of merits and hence prays for dismissal in limine.

Dated 28th March 2019 at Madurai

Respondent 1

Respondent 3

Counsel for Respondent 1 & 3

 IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL
DISTRICT JUDGE
MADURAI

E.P.No. 62 / 2018
in
A.CP. SSP SL No. 9 / 2013

COUNTER STATEMENT OF THE

RESPONDENTS 1 & 3

PETITIONER/ CLAIMANT

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd

RESPONDENT / JUDGMENT
DEBTORS

1) K.Anand
2) J.Sivaraman
3) K.Vasantha

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 1 & 3

N. KARTHIK KANNA 683/09