Sanonest Private Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 2026

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sanonest Private Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 2026

Bench: Jasmeet Singh

                          $~101
                          *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     W.P.(C) 6048/2026
                                SANONEST PRIVATE LIMITED                              ....Petitioner
                                                 Through:
                                                 versus
                                UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                           .....Respondents
                                                 Through: Mr. Anil Panwar SPC, Mr. Rajat
                                                 Mohan Dwivedi GP, Advs. for R1
                                                 Mr Dhaval Mehrotra, Ms Aditi Desai, Advs. for
                                                 R2
                                                 Mr. Siddharth Samaiya, Adv. R6
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
                                                 ORDER

% 04.05.2026 CM APPL. 29795/2026 Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6048/2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

"(i) Pass an ad-interim order forthwith staying and vacating the Interim Order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Respondent No. 4 in Arbitration Case No. 10 of 2025, in so far as it directs the freezing/attachment of bank accounts and appointment of Receiver;

(ii) Direct Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (ICICI Bank and YES Bank) to forthwith defreeze and restore operational access to account nos. 006505006490 and 001464700000212 respectively, pending disposal of this This is a digitally signed order.

(iii) Stay all further proceedings in Arbitration No. 10 of 2025 before Respondent No. 4, pending disposal of this petition;

(iv) Direct that no further coercive action including attachment of any property of the Petitioner or its Director be taken pursuant to the Interim Order dated 07.01.2026 or any subsequent order of Respondent No. 4;

(v) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Arbitrator in Arbitration No. 10 of 2025 to be void ab initio, being in violation of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;

(vi) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the Interim Order dated 07.01.2026 passed by Respondent No. 4 in its entirety;

(vii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 (Reserve Bank of India) to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the lending and recovery practices of Respondent No. 3 (AEFPL) and to take all appropriate regulatory action under the RBI Act, 1934, including action under Section 45-IA(6) if warranted;

(viii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11 No. 2 to enforce the Fair Practices Code for NBFCs so as to mandate adequate advance written notice before any material reduction or withdrawal of credit facilities to MSME borrowers;

(ix) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to examine and remedy the structural exclusion of NBFCs of Respondent No. 3's category from the RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, to ensure effective grievance redressal for MSME borrowers;

(x) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to: (a) formulate and issue comprehensive guidelines specifically protecting the rights and interests of persons with permanent disabilities in all matters of NBFC lending, loan recovery, and litigation - which guidelines shall include, without limitation: (i) a mandatory requirement that NBFCs ascertain and document the disability status of borrowers, directors, and guarantors at the time of on boarding and at every stage of recovery; (ii) enhanced advance notice periods - not less than 60 days - before any material reduction or withdrawal of a credit facility where the borrower, director, or guarantor is a person with permanent disability; (iii) a prohibition on the simultaneous initiation or continuation of proceedings before multiple forums located in different cities against a borrower, director, or guarantor who is a person with permanent This is a digitally signed order.

(iv) a prohibition on continuous or repeated ECS/NACH invocations against accounts of disabled borrowers already in documented default where such invocations serve no genuine recovery purpose and only accumulate bank charges; and (v) accessible grievance redressal mechanisms - including video conferencing, online submissions, and home visits - for borrowers with disability; and (b) direct, on an urgent basis, a comprehensive accessibility audit of the processes and functions of all institutions under RBI's purv1ew - including NBFCs, scheduled commercial banks, and payment system operators - to identify structural barriers faced by persons with permanent disability in accessing financial services, grievance redressal, and justice, and to publish the findings and corrective action plan within six months; consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and India's obligations under Articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

(xi) Award compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) from Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner, comprising: (a) loss caused by the abrupt and unnotified withdrawal of the credit facility in January 2025, which jeopardised the Petitioner's entire business operations and deprived it of working capital it had been regularly This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11 utilising for over two years, forcing it into default and causing loss of business opportunity far exceeding the principal amount; (b) repeated dishonour charges and bank penalties caused by Respondent No. 3's continuous and intentional invocation of the ECS/NACH mandate on the Petitioner's accounts from January 2025 to the present date - a period of over fifteen months - generating dishonour charges running into tens of thousands of rupees on multiple bank accounts over and above the claimed dues, being deliberate conduct designed to maximise the Petitioner's debt burden; (c) loss caused by the forced use of the Director's personal bank account for all business transactions following the freeze of the company's bank accounts, resulting m commingling of funds, exposure of personal assets to business liabilities, and reputational and financial prejudice to both the company and its Director; (d) complete paralysis of the Petitioner's banking operations from 20.01.2026 to the present day pursuant to the illegal exparte freeze order, preventing all receipts, payments, and discharge of statutory obligations including GST and salary payments, causing irreversible damage to business relationships and goodwill built over years; and (e) costs, mental anguish, and harassment incurred in simultaneously defending criminal proceedings in Calcutta, arbitration proceedings in Mumbai, and the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11 present writ petition, imposed on an MSME company whose Director is a person with pennanent locomotor disability residing m Ghaziabad;

(xii) Award exemplary and punitive compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner, over and above the compensatory relief claimed under prayer (xi) above, on account of Respondent No. 3's deliberate, calculated and systematic abuse of arbitral process - being: (a) the unilateral appointment as Arbitrator of Respondent No.4, who by his own mandatory disclosure had been appointed by the same Claimant in 110 matters in the preceding three years, rendering him ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a statutory prohibition that Respondent No. 3 cannot have been unaware of; (b) the obtaining of an ex-parte Interim Order under Section 17 freezing all bank accounts of the Petitioner without notice or hearing, through a tribunal constituted in deliberate violation of a statutory mandate; (c) the appointment of Respondent No. 3's own representative as Receiver over the Petitioner's assets under the said order- a device designed to give Respondent No. 3 de facto possession of the Petitioner's property pending proceedings before an arbitrator it had itself unlawfully installed; and (d) the simultaneous prosecution of This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11 criminal proceedings in Calcutta and arbitration in Mumbai against a Petitioner based in Delhi/Ghaziabad, by Respondent No. 3 whose registered office is in Gurugram, Haryana - deliberately selecting the most geographically distant and burdensome forums available, as part of a calculated strategy of multi-forum harassment and coercion that, by reason of its deliberate design to compel payment through procedural oppression, amounts to extortion by abuse of process. This Hon'ble Court is respectfully invited to exercise its power to award exemplary compensation under the constitutional tort jurisdiction established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, to deter Respondent No. 3 from continuing this pattern of conduct 47 against MSME borrowers who lack the resources to challenge it;

(xiii) Pass such other and further orders, writs, or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice;

(xiv) A ward costs of this petition against Respondent No.

3."

2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.

3. Mr. Panwar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Samaiya, learned counsel accepts notice on This is a digitally signed order.

4. Issue notice to all the other respondents through all modes including electronic on the petitioner taking steps within 1 week from today, returnable on 18.08.2026.

CM APPL. 29794/2026

5. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking stay of the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the respondent No. 4.

6. The facts are that the petitioner is a MSME registered in Delhi. The respondent No. 3 which is a Non Banking Finance Company and under the regulatory control of respondent No. 2 withdrew the petitioner's credit facility in January, 2025 without any prior notice, despite the fact that the petitioner have been making regular payments.

7. The respondent no. 3 appointed respondent No. 4 as an arbitrator.

8. In the disclosure under Section 12(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("1996 Act") respondent No. 4 disclosed that he has 1095 ongoing arbitrations and has been appointed by the respondent No. 3 in 110 matters as an arbitrator in the last 3 years.

9. The respondent No. 1 conducted the arbitration in Mumbai and vide order dated 07.01.2026, freezed the account of both the petitioner company and its directors.

10. Hence, the present petition.

11. As the petitioner company is a MSME registered in Delhi, prima facie this Court will have jurisdiction.

12. From the facts above it is clear that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are taking action which is totally contrary to the 1996 Act and cannot be countenanced.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11

13. The respondent No. 4 is apparently doing 110 arbitrations for respondent No. 3 and falls within the disqualification under Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act.

14. For the said reasons, the balance of convenience lies in the favour of the petitioner and it is directed that till the next date of hearing the Order dated 07.1.2026 passed by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 3 shall remain stayed.

15. List on 18.08.2026.

JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 4, 2026/AS This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2026 at 21:21:11

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders