Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge in this Revision is the Order dated 22-09-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in MA/211/2017 in connection with the CC/217/2017.

By such order, the Ld. District Forum, as it appears, restrained the Revisionist from taking repossession of the hypothecated vehicle till the next date.  Aggrieved with such order, this Revision is preferred.

It is the case of the Revisionist that, in accordance with the Hypothecation agreement, it disbursed requisite loan.  As it had got nothing to do with the quality of the vehicle in question, according to the Revisionist, it was highly improper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to restrain it from exercising its right, specially while the Arbitration award passed armed it to exercise such right.

Parties were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through.

It appears that the instant complaint case was filed before the Ld. District Forum on 24-04-2017.  From the documents filed by the Revisionist, we could not figure out the date of initiating of the Arbitration proceedings against the Respondent No. 1.

Though it appears the Ld. Arbitrator passed an ad interim order on 18-09-2017 directing the Respondent No. 1 to handover possession of the subject vehicle, significantly, the said order was passed without hearing the Respondent No. 1. 

Subsequently, the Ld. Arbitrator passed award on 28-11-2017.  On perusal of the said order, however, it is noticed by us that the said award was passed in absence of the Respondent No. 1. 

What is most intrigue in this matter was the fact that the Ld. Arbitrator proceeded with the said proceedings without satisfying himself about proper delivery of notice upon the Respondent No. 1. 

On comparison of the addresses mentioned in the Arbitration award vis-à-vis complaint petition, it transpires that the Respondent No. 1 resides at Rabindranath Road; whereas arbitration notice was sent to Rabindra Road South. 

In view of such dissimilarity and given that no definite proof was there to show due service of notice of the arbitration proceedings, it cannot be said with certainty that the Respondent No. 1 was aware of such proceedings. 

Lastly, there being nothing to show that the said arbitration proceedings was initiated before filing of the complaint case, in our considered opinion, the instant arbitration award was no hindrance to proceed with the complaint case and pass appropriate order(s) in the matter.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order appears to be fully in order.

Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss this Revision. Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 02-12-2019 for further proceedings in accordance with law.