Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (11) TMI 2061

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... HELD THAT:- A perusal of the award reveals that all factual aspects of the matter as raised by the parties have been adverted to and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator prior to arriving at the conclusion that the borrowers are liable to pay the outstanding dues to the company along with the contracted rate of interest at 24% from the date of claim till the date of realization. The sole dispute raised by the borrowers and canvassed is with regard to the rate of interest, being usurious. The allegations of fraud on the part of the company have been noted and adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and it is not proposed to re-visit the same. The thrust of the appeal is solely on the rate of interest that has been found by the Arbitrator to be the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts due, as a result of which, the agreements stood cancelled by the company. The Agreements contained a clause for resolution of disputes by arbitration. A claim was filed by the company before the sole Arbitrator and in addition to various claims, interest at the rate of 24% per annum was sought on the unpaid dues. 3. After hearing the parties in detail, an award was passed by the sole arbitrator dated 27.12.2014. The defence of the borrowers before the Arbitrator is interesting. While the outstanding principal is not disputed, the borrowers would dispute the rate of interest arguing that only simple interest at the rate of 12 % per annum was payable and not 24% per annum as claimed by the company in arbitration. The Arbitrator considers t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he parties reveal that the factum of loan is not disputed and the borrowers have, infact, undertaked to settle the same in full citing immediate financial stringency. Communication dated 06.09.2007 contains a specific commitment by the borrowers to the effect that efforts were on going 'on war-footing', to close the outstandings. Since there were no payments forthcoming thereafter, the company issued a legal notice dated 17.12.2007 calling upon the borrowers to repay the outstandings of an amount of Rs. 2,24,97,595/- as on 21.11.2008 along with interest at 24% and delayed payment charges. A reminder was issued by the company on 21.1.2008. It was for the first time in reply to the legal notice issued that the counsel for the borrower .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e decided in arbitration. The aforesaid direction for remittance has not been complied with by the borrower till date. 9. Mr. Parasaran relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Swan Gold Mining Ltd. V. Hindustan Copper Ltd., dated 22.9.2014, a copy of which has been circulated. 10. Heard learned counsel. The impugned award records the position that the agreed and contracted rate of interest is 24% as set out in the loan agreements dated 03.04.2006 and 03.07.2006. 11. The question before me is whether the agreed rate of interest being 24% is liable to be substituted with the rate of interest at 12%, which, according to the borrowers, is more acceptable. The petitioner would allege that the loan documents have been executed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same. The thrust of the appeal is solely on the rate of interest that has been found by the Arbitrator to be the agreed contracted rate warranting no interference at this juncture. The view taken is based on an appreciation of the relevant facts and the terms of the agreements between the parties and, in my view is liable to be confirmed as regards the levy of interest for the period from date of claim till date of award, being 27.12.2014. The grounds of challenge under Section 34(2) are narrow in scope and do not permit a re-appreciation of evidence. The proper course of action for the petitioner, if it was really aggrieved by the order of the tribunal rejecting the interim application, was to have challenged the same. This was however no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates