IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016

1. Sakthivel
2. Sundaram ....Petitioners/ Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory ....1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy .... 2nd Respondent/Sole Arbitrator

3. Parakash .... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION

ACT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE AWARD PASSED IN
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016 ,
DATED 21.09.2016

I.PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS

1. Sakthivel, S/o.Sundaram, Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82, Sakthi

Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03.

2. Sundaram, S/o. , Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82,

Sakthi Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03.

The address for service of the petitioners is same as above and under the care
of their counsel A. KUPPURAJ, B.Sc., B.L., and P. Balasubramanian, B.A., B.L.,
Advocates, Coimbatore – 18.

II. 1st RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT

1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited., Rep by its
Authorised Signatory, is having office at Gateway Building, Apolla Bunder,Mumbai
- 400 001.

III. RESPONDENT No. 2 /SOLE ARBITRATOR

2. R. Krishna Moorthy, Sole Arbitrator, is having office at “Green Enclave” No.

3/7, Flat No.4, First Floor, Annai Parvathi Nagar, Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 600
097.
 -2-

IV. RESPONDENT No. 3 /3RD RESPONDENT

3. Parakash, S/o. , Hindu, full aged, residing at

No.30/1, Balaji Nagar, Near Elango Nagar, Manikaranpalayam, Coimbatore -03.

The address for service of the respondents is the same as above.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS:-

The petitioners submit that the petitioners are the alleged borrowers of the
alleged loan for the purpose of purchasing vehicle being VOLKSWAGAN JETTA 2.0
TDJ, Registration No. T.N. 69 AZ 5990 under the alleged Hypothecation
Agreement dated 16.12.2014. The 1st respondent is the alleged lender and the
respondent No. 2 is said to be the Sole Arbitrator of the award passed inAG16-
NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated
21.09.2016.

CASE OF THE PETITIONERS

The alleged execution of Hypothecation agreement by the petitioners

herein is strictly denied. The alleged loan agreement including the alleged rate of
interest was in fact filled up in blank without the knowledge of the petitioners and
hence the said alleged agreement is not binding upon the petitioners herein. The
petitioners never agreed upon the rate of interest as alleged in the claim
statement and the alleged award if any; and the claimant is to put strict proof of
the same. Particularly, the statement of the claimant, the alleged loan agreement
No. 3470956 and the computerised statement of accounts produced by the
claimant before the 2nd respondent if any, are all denied as false and fabricated.

It is pertinent to note that the claimant is not entitled to file the

Arbitration proceedings without consent of the petitioners herein before the 2nd
respondent herein. On the other hand, the petitioners never received any notice
with regard to appointment of the 2 nd respondent as Sole Arbitrator from him or
the 1st respondent herein for passing the award. Therefore, the statement of the
claimant/R1 and the Arbitration proceedings are not maintainable as the same
are not in accordance with law and on facts. The petitioners never agreed to
conduct Arbitration proceedings in Mumbai or Chennai. Therefore, the exparte
award said to have been passed by the 2 nd respondent herein on 21.09.2016 are
not binding on the petitioners herein as the terms and conditions of the alleged
agreement. Further, the proceedings were not properly conducted by the 2 nd
respondent and no intimation was given about the appointment of the 2 nd
respondent as a sole arbitrator or the hearing dates of his impugned proceedings.
Without proper service of notice, such award having no legal force is not
binding on the petitioners.
 Further, without filing any accounts, which was supposed to have been
maintained by the 1st respondent, before the Arbitrator, the award was passed by
the 2nd respondent herein in tacit collusion between the 1 st and 2nd respondents

-3-

based on created documents, that is, the alleged documents, which are not at all
binding on the petitioners. Therefore, the exparte award passed inAG16-NPA-
ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated
21.09.2016, is bad in law and needs to be set aside. Hence this application.

CASE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

That the petitioners are the borrowers of the alleged agreement. The 1 st
respondent had availed a loan cum Hypothecation loan agreement by entering
into a loan agreement only at Coimbatore, inter alia agreeing to repay the said
loan amount (without mentioning any instalment period in the award) and
undertook to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement, that
the petitioners defaulted, that the 1st respondent is entitled to take possession,
seize, recover the said asset and sell the same and appropriate the net sale
proceeds towards satisfaction of the amounts due under the said agreement and
that the petitioners are liable to pay the alleged amount a sum of Rs. 788381/-
together with interest at the rate of 3% per month from 03.08.2016.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

It is significant to note that either the Arbitrator or the 1 st respondent has

sent any notice to the petitioners prior to the alleged order passed by the 2 nd
respondent at any point of time much less on the alleged date of order. The
interim order itself reveals that “the claimant counsel informed the Tribunal that
the notice of the application has been served on the respondents.” The
foregoing facts would reveal that there was no notice sent to the petitioners
herein. On the other hand, the 2 nd respondent herein has not at all received any
documents with regard to service of notices to the petitioner herein. Neither
getting of any documents by the 2 nd respondent nor any document is produced by
the 1st respondent with regard to service of notice to the petitioners concerning
the alleged order passed by the 2 nd respondent and the same is perverse, non-est
and unenforceable in accordance with law and on facts.

The alleged proceedings would show that the 2 nd respondent is colluded

with the 1st respondent because the 2nd respondent is having Office at Chennai
and that there is no possibility to conduct the alleged proceeding at Mumbai,
which itself would reveal that the copy of the alleged order is void and not in the
manner known to law. Further, as per the law, the contract agreement if any, was
created only at Coimbatore between the 1 st respondent and the petitioners and
that either Chennai or Mumbai is not at all having jurisdiction to conduct the
arbitration proceedings against the petitioners. The order passed by the 2 nd
respondent has to be set-aside in limine as the same has been filed with
jurisdictional error.
 -4-
The petitioners never received any notice either from the 1 st respondent or from
the 2nd respondent for appointment of the 2 nd respondent as a sole arbitrator. On
this ground alone, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent is to be set aside in
accordance with law and that the alleged order passed by the 2 nd respondent is no
way binding on the petitioners herein in any way whatsoever.

The petitioners further submit that the 1 st respondent has no right to

invoke the Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the first
instance, when the Section 9 of the Act is available, which prevails over Section 17
of the Act and therefore, this Hon’ble Court is having ample power to pass any
type of orders in respect of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the order
passed by the 2nd respondent herein as regards the interim order for an
appointment of receiver and seizing the vehicle, is unenforceable one against the
petitioners herein.

GROUNDS TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ARBITRATION AWARD

1. The petitioners most humbly submit that the Arbitrator had not sent
proper notice for conducting the proceedings to the petitioners prior to the
exparte award passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF.
No.3470956 OF 2016, dated 21.09.2016. Therefore, the 2 nd respondent was
misled into passing an alleged award on 21.09.2016. Therefore, without proper
service of notice, such award having no legal force is not at all binding on the
petitioners herein.

2. At the outset, the 2nd respondent’s exparte award appears to sound a note
of threat and passed only to satisfy the 1 st respondent herein. Further, there
were no date of default committed by the petitioners, with regard to payment
made by the petitioners, rate of interest of the alleged loan, and the EMI period.
Besides, without referring to or considering any statement of accounts or
documents, which were supposed to be maintained by the 1 st respondent, the
exparte award was not in accordance with law.

3. The 1st respondent herein has not sent any proper demand notice or copy
of the claim petition with regard to the alleged loan transaction. The allegations
mentioned in the alleged exparte award are false, untrue and baseless.

4. The 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent has not sent any notice under
section 11 of the Act. Without giving proper notice under section 11 of the Act,
the 2nd respondent would have no locus standi to conduct the Arbitral
proceedings at Mumbai because the said alleged loan agreement is said to have
been executed between the petitioners and the 1 st respondent at Coimbatore
only.
5. The 1st respondent neither filed the account books before the Arbitrator,
pertaining to the loan transactions nor called for any accounts for proving the

-5-

claim of the 1st respondent company if any, and the Arbitrator has colluded with
the 1st respondent and passed the exparte alleged award in
AG16-NPA-ARBRKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated
21.09.2016.

6. The 1st respondent has suppressed the payment made by the petitioners
herein to the 1st respondent periodically prior to the arbitration proceedings and
the petitioners are in no way liable to pay any amount due to the 1 st respondent
as on date. There is no default on the petitioners’ side for making repayment of
the alleged loan. Therefore, the question of handing over of possession of the
Vehicle, or effecting seizure by the claimant through the official receiver, or of
taking possession from the petitioners does not arise at all.

7. Even otherwise, the impugned award is bad in law and liable to be set
aside. On 05.10.2016, after receipt of the exparte award dated 21.09.2016 from
the 2nd respondent, the petitioners approached the 1 st respondent’s branch office
and questioned the alleged claim amount, alleged arbitration proceedings as well
as the payment made by the petitioners, who without giving proper explanation
bluntly refused the petitioners’ demand. Furthermore, since no sufficient
opportunity was given by the 2nd respondent for filing of counter and documents,
and the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

8. The 2nd respondent has not acted in accordance with law and further
before passing of the impugned award failed to apply his mind as to the legality,
if any of the alleged loan agreement, and account books, etc,. Further, the 2 nd
respondent herein has not called for original documents viz day book and ledger,
if any, from the 1st respondent in respect of the alleged claim of the 1 st
respondent herein during the alleged arbitration proceedings for proper
adjudication and to decide the validity of the same. Further, as per the law, the
contract agreement if any, was created only at Coimbatore between the 1 st
respondent and the petitioners and that either Chennai or Mumbai is not at all
having jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration proceedings against the petitioners.

9. The loan agreement allegedly entered into between the petitioner herein
and the 1st respondent was at Coimbatore and the petitioner is residing at
Coimbatore and this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of
this petition.

10. The alleged award has not mentioned any claim amount. Accordingly,
Court Fee of Rs. 5,000/- is paid under Article II (M)(ii)(3) of Schedule II of the TNCF
and S.V Act.
 -6-

11. The 1st respondent has not given proper notice to the petitioners and an
opportunity was denied for making an application for appointment of the
Arbitrator or the Arbitration proceeding in view of proviso (a)(i), (iii) Sub Clause
(2) and Section 34 of the Act. Further, there was no opportunity given by the 2 nd
respondent for production of payment receipts and counter statement by the
petitioners herein during the alleged proceedings. Therefore, the award passed
in AG16-NPA-ARB-(M&M): QB 500/R59/3470956 OF 2016, dated 21.09.2016, is
liable to be set aside. The award itself is ex-facie nullity. This application is filed
within the stipulated period from the date of the receipt of the award from the
2nd respondent that is on 21.09.2016.

12. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners most humbly pray that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

(a). Allow this application and set aside the impugned exparte award
passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No. 3470956 OF
2016, dated 21.09.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent herein.

(b). Award costs of the petition in respect of this application.

(c). To pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case and render justice.

1.

2.

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS PETITIONERS

VERFICATION

We, the petitioners, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the above
stated facts are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and we
have signed this verification at Coimbatore on 07.12.2016.

1.

2.

PETITIONERS
 -7-

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. 21.09.2016. Copy of the exparte award passed by

2nd Respondent along with postal covers.

2. 03.10.2016 Covering letter sent by the 2nd respondent herein.

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE
DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258
QB500/ZE2279/AFF.
No.3470956 OF 2016

1.Sakthivel

2.Sundaram

...Petitioners/ Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and
Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory

...1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy

.. 2nd Respondent/Sole Arbitrator

3.Parakash

.... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 34

OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT FOR SETTING ASIDE
THE EXPARTE AWARD(RKM. No. 1)
PASSED IN
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB
500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF
2016, DATED 21.09.2016

Pre – on .12.2016
Encls: Vakalath -1
Documents -1
Proof affidavit -1
Batta with Encls -3

Address for service:

A. KUPPURAJ, B.Sc., B.L.

P. BALASUBRAMANIAN
Advocates,
No. 10-E, First Floor
 State Bank Road
Coimbatore – 18.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE

DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB
500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF
2016

1. Sakthivel

2. Sundaram

...Petitioners/ Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and
Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory

...1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy

.. 2nd Respondent/Sole Arbitrator

3.Parakash

.... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent

PROOF AFFIDAVIT
 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

A. O. P. No. OF 2016
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016

1. Sakthivel
2. Sundaram ....Petitioners/ Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory ....1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy .... 2nd Respondent/Sole Arbitrator

3. Parakash .... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent

PROOF AFFIDAVIT

I, Sakthivel, S/o.Sundaram, Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82, Sakthi

Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03, do hereby solemnly affirm
and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the deponent herein and the 1st petitioner in the above main petition.

2. I am instituted a petition to set aside the exparte impugned awardAG16-

NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated
21.09.2016, which was passed by the sole Arbitrator/2 nd respondent herein. The
petition contains full and complete facts and is duly verified as per rules.

3. The Mandatory Provision that the person verifying the pleadings in the
every newly instituted petition shall also furnish an affidavit on proof in support
thereof. I submit that the pleadings in the petition are in perfect order and
contain complete, full, and essential particulars in all respects. There is no
deficiency of any matter materials in any manner whatsoever. I have compiled
with the provision of Order IV Sub Rules 1 &2.

4. I submit that the relief claimed and facts set out in the petition and the
documents reliefs upon the petition are precise and genuine in nature. I have not
infringed any of the provisions in the Arbitration Procedure in the newly instituted
petition.

I therefore pray that the petition instituted today may be entertained and
taken on file for being heard and reliefs prayed for may be granted.

Solemnly affirmed and singed

before me at Coimbatore Deponent
on 07.12.2016
Advocate, Coimbatore – 18.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

I. A. No. OF 2016

A. O. P. No. OF 2016
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016

1. Sakthivel
2. Sundaram ....Petitioners/Petitioners /Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory ....1st Respondent/1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy .... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /Sole

Arbitrator

3. Parakash .... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/3rd

Respondent

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 36(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND

CONCILIATION ACT

I.PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

1. Sakthivel, S/o.Sundaram, Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82, Sakthi

Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03.

2. Sundaram, S/o. , Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82,

Sakthi Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03.

The address for service of the petitioners is same as above and under the care
of their counsel A. KUPPURAJ, B.Sc., B.L., and P. Balasubramanian, B.A., B.L.,
Advocates, Coimbatore – 18.

II. 1st RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT

1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited., Rep by

its Authorised Signatory, is having office at Gateway Building, Apolla
Bunder,Mumbai - 400 001.

III. RESPONDENT No. 2 / 2ND RESPONDENT /SOLE ARBITRATOR

2. R. Krishna Moorthy, Sole Arbitrator, is having office at “Green Enclave”

No. 3/7, Flat No.4, First Floor, Annai Parvathi Nagar, Thoraipakkam,
Chennai - 600 097.
 -2-

IV. RESPONDENT No. 3 /3RD RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT

3. Parakash, S/o. , Hindu, full aged, residing at No.30/1,

Balaji Nagar, Near Elango Nagar, Manikaranpalayam, Coimbatore -03.

The address for service of the respondents is the same as above.

V. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners pray
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in respect of
award passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF.
No.3470956 OF 2016, dated 21.09.2016, which is passed by the 2 nd
respondent/Sole Arbitrator, until the disposal of the accompanying main petition
(AOP), and also to grant an order of AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION for the above said
relief, pending disposal of the Interlocutory Application filed in support of the
Affidavit; and thus, render justice.

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

I. A. No. OF 2016

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016

1. Sakthivel
2. Sundaram ....Petitioners/Petitioners /Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory ....1st Respondent/1st Respondent/ Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy .... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /Sole

Arbitrator

3. Parakash .... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/3rd

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sakthivel, S/o.Sundaram, Hindu, aged years, residing at No. 82, Sakthi

Mariamman Kovil Street, Lolly Road, Coimbatore -03, do hereby solemnly affirm
and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the deponent herein and the 1 st petitioner in the above main petition. I
swear this affidavit on behalf of the 2nd petitioner also.

2. I am instituted a main petition to set aside the exparte impugned award

passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF
2016, dated 21.09.2016, which was passed by the sole Arbitrator/2 nd respondent
herein.

3. It is significant to note that either the Arbitrator or the 1 st respondent has

sent any notice to us prior to the alleged order passed by the 2 nd respondent at
any point of time much less on the alleged date of order. Further, the interim
order itself reveals that “the claimant counsel informed the Tribunal that the
notice of the application has been served on the respondents.” The foregoing
facts would reveal that there was no notice sent to us. On the other hand, the 2 nd
respondent herein has not at all received any documents from the 1 st respondent
with regard to service of notices to the petitioners herein. Neither getting of any
documents by the 2nd respondent nor any document is produced by the 1 st
respondent with regard to service of notice to the petitioners concerning the
alleged order passed by the 2 nd respondent and the same is perverse, non-est
and unenforceable in accordance with law and on facts.
 -2-
4. I further submit that the alleged proceedings would show that the 2 nd
respondent is colluded with the 1st respondent because the 2nd respondent is
having Office at Chennai and that there is no possibility to conduct the alleged
proceeding at Mumbai, which itself would reveal that the copy of the alleged
order is void and perverse and not in the manner known to law. Further, as per
the law, the contract agreement if any, was created only at Coimbatore between
the 1st respondent and us and that either Chennai or Mumbai is not at all having
jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration proceedings against us. The award has to
be set aside in limine as the same has been filed with jurisdictional error.

5. I further submit that we never received any notice either from the 1 st
respondent or from the 2nd respondent for appointment of the 2 nd respondent as
a sole arbitrator. On this ground alone, the order passed by the 2 nd respondent is
to be set aside in accordance with law and that the alleged order passed by the
2nd respondent is no way binding on us in any way whatsoever.

6. I further submit that the 1 st respondent has no right to invoke the Section
17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the first instance to pass
interim order, when the Section 9 of the Act is available, which prevails over
Section 17 of the Act and therefore, this Hon’ble Court is having ample power to
pass any type of orders in respect of the dispute between the parties. Therefore,
the interim order passed by the 2 nd respondent herein as regards the
appointment of receiver and seizing the vehicle, is unenforceable one against us.

7. I further submit that the 2 nd respondent herein has failed to see that the
balance of convenience and prima facie case was in our favour. Unless further
proceedings in the exparte impugned award passed in
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016,
dated 21.09.2016 are stayed till the disposal of the main AOP, our precious rights
and interest over the subject matter of the movable property, will be defeated
and lost.

9. I further submit that if the said the exparte impugned award passed in
AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016,
dated 21.09.2016 is proceeded with, even before disposal of the AOP, again our
invaluable right of impugning the order will be lost and nothing will be left
surviving. On the other hand, the 1 st respondent herein would in no manner be
prejudiced if the petition is allowed.

10. I further submit that the balance of convenience and prima facie case are in
our favour and therefore, we are entitled for a stay of entire further proceedings
in the exparte impugned award passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB
500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated 21.09.2016 by the second
respondent herein.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, unless this petition is allowed, I
will be put irreparable loss and hardship.

-3-

It is just, necessary and expedient that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay
all proceedings in respect of award passed in AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258
QB 500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF 2016, dated 21.09.2016,which is passed by
the 2nd respondent/Sole Arbitrator, until the disposal of the accompanying main
petition (AOP), and also to grant an order of AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION for the
above said relief, pending disposal of the present Interlocutory Application filed in
support of this Affidavit; and thus, render justice.

DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me at Coimbatore on 07.12.2016

Advocate, Coimbatore- 18.

 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE
DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

I. A. No. OF 2016

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB
500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956
OF 2016

1.Sakthivel
2.Sundaram
...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and
Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory

...1st Respondent/ 1st

Respondent/Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy

.. 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /Sole

Arbitrator

3.Parakash

.... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/ 3rd

Respondent

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION

36(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT

Pre – on .12.2016

Address for service:

A. KUPPURAJ, B.Sc., B.L.

P. BALASUBRAMANIAN
Advocates,
No. 10-E, First Floor
State Bank Road
Coimbatore – 18.
 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE
DISTRICT JUDGE OF COIMBATORE

I. A. No. OF 2016

A. O. P. No. OF 2016

AG16-NPA-ARB-RKM/S:5/BR:258 QB
500/ZE2279/AFF. No.3470956 OF
2016

1.Sakthivel
2.Sundaram
...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Respondents

-Vs-
1. M/s. Mahindra Finance, and
Mahindra Finance Service Limited,
Rep by its authorised signatory

...1st Respondent/ 1st

Respondent/Claimant

2.Mr. R. Krishna Moorthy

.. 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /Sole

Arbitrator

3.Parakash

.... 3rd Respondent/3rd Respondent/ 3rd

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT