Himanshu Girdhar vs. Toyota Financial Services India Ltd.
An appeal under Section 37 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging an order dated 5th November 2019 announced by a Sole Arbitrator under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the appellant is a guy around 34 years old who is actually in the profession as a business owner. The appellant was engaged in a profitable market, pursued by the officials of the respondent corporation for the extension of the car loan, as the said business of the appellant had quite a strong reputation in the view of its financial front; whereas the appellant did not require any monetary help in 2018. The appellant had planned the procurement of a Toyota Fortuner automobile on its own but after the officials of the respondent had clarified the low rate of interest along with the usage of the resources, the appellant had decided to fund the hypothecation of the car. The plaintiff was advised by the respondent's representatives that the cost was 8.5 percent per year but rather that the identical amount was ultimately charged at 9.75 percent per year and this truth caught the attention of the plaintiff after the financial service had been used; considering the higher rate of return, the plaintiff paid EMI, but sadly the hirer misled the plaintiff and the appellant sustained massive loss.
“The appellant was never served any notice of recalling loan from the respondent company and lastly on 22/01/2020, the court receiver took the possession of the aforesaid Toyota Fortuner car from Rajouri Garden in the absence of Appellant while the car was in the custody of driver of Appellant. The appellant was appraised that an order dated 22/08/2019 was passed by the Court of Ld. ADJ-02, PHC, New Delhi under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act directing the appellant to hand over the possession of the car in question. Since the appellant was regularly visiting the office of the respondent to negotiate the terms of the payment of installments but the same availed no result and lastly on 10/02/2020 the official namely Sameer of respondent handed over the order dated 05/11/2019 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator stating that they have no directions to even release the vehicle even after the complete payment of the overdue installments.”
The issue at hand is, the order passed on 22nd August 2019 passed by Ld. ADJ at Patiala House Court which gave orders to begin Arbitral Proceedings under 90 days was not met with.
The judgment of the Court
The documentation of the arbitral hearings could have been reviewed by the plaintiff before Ld. Single Arbitrator on or around 11/16/2019. None of it like that has been done. However, even though the decision of the plaintiff to obtain a duplicate of the challenged order published on 05/11/2019 on 10/02/2020 is treated as an absolute fact, the limited time of 30 days for the lodging of an appeal, as provided for in Article 116(b) of the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963, will expire on 11/03/2020 when the District Courts were well functional even before the nationwide pandemic lockdown and hence, there is no hindrance in the appellant's manner of bringing the appeal at or until 11/03/2020. There really is no claim filed by the plaintiff in the notice of appeal seeking a break in the submission of the appeal. In that case, the appeal was lodged past the limitation period and is thus rejected.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.