High Court of Delhi
Praveen Kumar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors
A written communication sent to addressee’s last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address is deemed receipt.
Co-borrower along with other signatories of the home equity agreement are jointly and severally liable to re-pay the loan amount disbursed by concerned lender In the present case, Petitioner along with respondents No. 2 to 4 approached the respondent No. 1 for grant of loan against property for purpose of their business. Respondent No. 1 sanctioned the loan facility to the borrowers vide Home Loan Agreement executed between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner along with respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. borrowers on 28th June, 2004. Borrowers failed to pay the EMIs and committed default in repayment as per the terms of the aforesaid Agreement. Hence, disputes arose between respondent No. 1 and the borrowers Notice of reference and notice by Arbitrator for inviting objections to statement of claim as well as dispatch of Award was sent by duly recognised mode on the addresses of borrowers. All postal receipts have been filed. As per Section 3 Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee’s last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.
Act of the petitioner is binding upon other partner/partners. High Court observed that, Petitioner was aware of the arbitration proceedings right from its inception when the Notice-cum-Reference letter was duly served and replied by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner who happens to be a partner in respondent No. 4, in connivance with rest of the respondents/borrowers deliberately and malafidely avoided the arbitration proceedings to defeat its purpose.
Petitioner being co-borrower along with other signatories of the home equity agreement are jointly and severally liable to re-pay the loan amount disbursed by concerned lender.
Award was passed in the year 2006 and the present petition filed in the year 2011 is much beyond the period of limitation and the averments made by the petitioner in support of condonation of delay lacks merit.
Dismissing the Petition as well as prayer for condonation of delay, High Court observed that, petitioner was negligent as well as did not acted diligently and further remained inactive despite being aware of the arbitration proceedings.