Delhi District Court
Balvir Singh Sekhon vs M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd on 2 February, 2021
Through Video Conferencing via Cisco Webex
Link :https://delhidistrictcourts.webex.com/meet/ddc.vc.south12
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-2)
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
ARB. A (COMM) 2/18
Balvir Singh Sekhon
S/o Sh. J. S Sekhon
R/o H. No. BXX 1881, Street No. 5,
Maharaj Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-140001 ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.
At 3 Local Shopping Complex,
2nd Floor, Near Madangiri, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi ..... Respondent No. 1
2. Dr. Gaurav Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Ramlal Sachdeva
R/o 53, Defence colony, BRS Nagar
Ludhiana, Punjab-140001 ...... Respondent No. 2
3. Shri Dilip Pandita
Sole Arbitrator
Y-44, Lawyers Chamber, Civil Side
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 ...... Respondent No. 3
Date of institution:11.12.2018
Date of arguments:22.01.2021
Date of judgment :02.02.2021
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act"), filed by the petitioner - Balvir Singh Sekhon for setting aside arbitral award dated 27.03.2018 passed by Shri Dilip Pandita, Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 1 of 15Case of petitioner
2. In brief, the background facts of the case as submitted by Shri Abhishek Sharma, Ld. counsel appearing for petitioner, are that petitioner was one of the Director/Promoter of M/s A.A. Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and he along with other promoters/directors set up a hospital at Ludhiana namely "Ludhiana Mediciti". In order to finance the project, the hospital approached the bank and financers for the purpose of grant of loan facility and availed few loan facilities from the banks. It is stated that petitioner being one of the promoters of the company executed certain deed of guarantee in loan facilities availed by the company and mortgaged his residential property. Due to financial hardship, the loan could not be repaid in time and said hospital fell in arrears and the account was classified as NPA and proceedings under SRFAESI Act were initiated.
3. It is stated that demand notice dated 13.05.2011 was issued claiming an amount of Rs.22,84,74,378/-. It is stated that the entire assets of the petitioner were auctioned and sold by bank and financers. It is stated that petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition 17785/2012 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against bank and financer.
4. It is further stated that petitioner availed finance for a vehicle from the respondent no. 1 M/s Citicorp Finance India Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.61,20,000/- under hypothecation agreement. According to the petitioner, there was no dues and entire amount was paid, respondent no. 1 initiated arbitration proceedings alleging that an amount of Rs.21,59,118/- was due and payable by the petitioner towards the loan of the vehicle in question. It is stated that petitioner had received notice from Shri Dilip Pandita, Ld. Arbitrator after his appointment and filing of claim petition and had engaged a counsel Mr. Shonak Sharma, advocate, Noida, UP to look after the matter.
Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 2 of 155. It is submitted that arbitration proceeding was not maintainable but Ld. Arbitrator proceeded with the matter and passed exparte award against the petitioner and respondent no. 2. It is further stated that petitioner enquired from his advocate Shri Shonak Sharma regarding the status of the matter to which he always replied that the matter was pending and he was taking care of the same.
6. It is further stated that on the request of counsel for respondent no. 1 on 4th May, 2015, arbitration proceeding was kept in abeyance, which was revived again on 26th November, 2016 and that petitioner was not aware about the said order nor he was intimated by his counsel despite always calling him about the status. He was shocked to receive the award dated 27th March, 2018 and then he tried to contact his counsel who did not pick up his calls.
7. In the grounds, petitioner has stated that he did not get opportunity to present his case before the Ld. Arbitrator and his counsel had not pursued the matter before the Ld. Arbitrator resulting into exparte award dated 27th March, 2018 and that the award has been passed against the principle of natural justice and without opportunity of fair hearing and the petitioner never got any notice in respect of revival of the case and petitioner was under the impression that his counsel was pursuing the matter. It is submitted that party should not suffer because of his advocate's fault. In support, he has relied upon the cases reported as "Salil Dutta Vs. T.M. & M.C.. Pvt. Ltd.", 1993(1) SCR 794 and "M/s Sri Ananda Kumar Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 7214-7216 of 2012.
SubmIssions of Respondent no. 1
8. Shri Avinash Kumar, Ld. counsel appearing for the respondent, has argued that petitioner chose to non-cooperate with the Arbitration proceedings and is trying to put the entire blame upon the advocate which ought not to be accepted by this court. It is further Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 3 of 15 submitted that petitioner has availed a Loan of Rs. 61,20,000/- vide Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement No. LYIY361781209 dated 31.05.2008 and agreed to repay the same with interest in 60 EMIs of Rs.1,39,249/- each. However, the petitioner has failed to repay the EMIs. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 in terms of the Loan Agreement issued demand/loan recall notice on 27.09.2012 10 the petitioner and the same was duly served to the petitioner but the petitioner with the ulterior motive neither replied the demand notice nor repay the outstanding amount of Rs. 21,59,118/- as mentioned in the demand notice.
9. It is argued that being aggrieved, respondent No. 1 left with no other option invoked the arbitration clause and appointed the Sole Arbitrator/ Respondent No.3 in terms of the Loan Agreement to adjudicate the Claim. Accordingly, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator on 19.11.2012 issued notice to the parties for preliminary hearing on 29.11.2012 at 3:00 pm at his office in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. However, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the notice dated 19.11.2012 send to petitioner was returned back with the postal mark "REFUSED TO RECEIVE". Ld. counsel has submitted that the settled principle of law is that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or addressee not in station, due service has to be presumed. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 06.12.2012 to file the Statement of Claim by Citicorp Finance India Ltd./respondent No.1 herein.
10. It is submitted that on 06.12.2012, respondent No.1 herein filed the Statement of Claim and the copy of Statement of Claim along with documents had been sent to the petitioner with directions to use the Movement of Defence on the text dare of hearing i.e on 03.01.2013. Ld. counsel for the respondent has taken the court through the order sheets since the inception till the date petitioner herein was proceeded exparte which this court shall discuss below.
Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 of 1511. It is submitted that on 26.11.2016 the respondent No. 1 requested the Ld. Arbitrator to revive the Arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. Arbitrator issued fresh notice to the petitioner with directions to appear on 19.12.2016 and the same was duly delivered to petitioner as per the service report of speed post. However, the petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator on the date fixed and the Ld. Arbitrator adjourned the matter for 03.01.2017.
12. It is further argued that the petitioner, however, did not attend the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator on 03.01.2017, hence the petitioner proceeded ex-parte and the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2017 for filing of ex-parte evidence. Thereafter ex-parte evidence furnished by the petitioner by way of an affidavit was taken on record by the Ld. Arbitrator and matter was adjourned to 16.09.2017 for arguments.
13. Ld. counsel for respondent has further submitted that on 16.09.2017 arguments were addressed by the respondent No.1 herein and the Ld. Arbitrator on the basis of the arbitral record, passed the ex- parte Award on 27.03.2018. It is thus submitted that in view of the aforementioned narration of facts, petitioner cannot challenge the ex- parte award on the ground that he was not being properly served of the Arbitral proceedings or was not aware of the Arbitral proceedings.
14. Ld. counsel for respondent has further submitted that petitioner is an educated person and by profession he is a doctor and Promoter/Director of M/s A.A. Hospital Pvt Ltd. It is submitted that the Arbitral proceedings was kept in abeyance and not disposed of or Award has been passed, the petitioner deliberately refused to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal.
15. It is submitted that court cannot sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal by reassessing or re-appreciating the evidence. An award can be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in section 34(2) of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of any ground under section 34(2) Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 5 of 15 of the Act, it is not possible to re-examine the facts to find out whether a different decision can be arrived at. It is argued that the correctness of the inference drawn by the arbitral tribunal cannot be gone into by the court since such an exercise would entail going through the entire arbitral record and give an opportunity to the parties to address on the inference drawn by the arbitral tribunal. Permitting such an exercise to be undertaken would make section 34 proceeding akin to an appeal. It is prayed that this Court the petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. In support of his submissions, Ld. counsel for respondent has relied upon the cases, Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185; Man Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Gaon Sabha Jindpur and Others, 2012 (4) ILR (Del) 50; Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. RFA No.497 of 2017; M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 4481; Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2018)14 SCC 783; Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd vs J M Combines, (2015) 5 SCC 698; M/S Jai Bajrang Rice and Gen. Mills vs. Food Corporation Of India Etc on 29 September, 2016 Punjab-Haryana High Court FAO No.797 of 2007 (O&M); P. R. Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited v B.H.H. Securities Private Limited (2012) 1 SCC 594; National Highways Authority of India v Oriental Structural India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) ARBLR 322 (Delhi).
LEGAL STANDARD
17. It would be appropriate to examine the scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 34, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, reads thus :
"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 of 15
(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-
section (3).
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by a Court only if -
(a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of arbitral tribunal that -
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with the dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 7 of 15
(b) the Court finds that -
(i) the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1. - For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that what is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if, -
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2. - For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.
(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence."
18. Following are the basic principles while exercising jurisdiction U/s Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 8 of 15 34 of A&C Act :-
(i) The Arbitral tribunal is the final arbiter of the facts and the law. Ordinarily, conclusions of fact, or law, at which the arbitral tribunal arrives, are not amenable to interference under Section 34.
(ii) This principle is subject to the following exceptions :-
(a) Where the conclusion of the arbitral tribunal, whether on facts or on law is perverse, it merits interference.
Perversity, in such a case must be of such a degree that no reasonable man, conversant with the facts and the law, would arrive at such a decision.
(b) If the findings of the arbitral tribunal are contrary to the contract between the parties, the court is bound to interfere. This is, essentially, because the arbitral tribunal draws its jurisdiction from the contract, and is a creature thereof. The arbitral tribunal, cannot, therefore, arrive at a conclusion which militates against the terms of the contract between the parties, merely to do equity, or for any other reason.
(c) Similarly, if the conclusion of the arbitral tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, or any other binding judicial precedent, the court can interfere. This is because any conclusion, by the arbitral tribunal, which is contrary to the extant law, is treated as violative of public policy, which is a well settled ground for interference with the award.
(iii) In other cases, as already noted above, ordinarily, interference with the arbitral award is to be scrupulously eschewed. Having elected to resolve their disputes by arbitration, the parties are ordinarily expected to defer to the decision of the arbitrator. Awards of arbitral tribunals cannot be likened with judgments of courts, which are susceptible to appeal. Else, the very raison d'etre of the establishment of the arbitral institution would stand defeated.
(iv) The court is not, therefore, entitled to sit in appeal over the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Neither can the court re- appreciate the evidence, which has been appreciated by the arbitral tribunal. If, however, the arbitral tribunal ignores material evidence, that would Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 9 of 15 amount to "perversity", which would invite interference under Section 34. If all the evidence has been examined by the arbitral tribunal, the court cannot interfere on the ground that the examination of the evidence, as undertaken by the arbitral tribunal, is not, to its mind, satisfactory or sufficient. Nor can the court substitute its own view for the view of the arbitral tribunal, on the ground that, in its perception, the view of the court is "better" or "more appropriate".
19. The aforenoted principles pertain to the scope of interference with arbitral awards, by courts, on merits. These are apart from the other well established grounds on which the court may interfere, such as misconduct by the arbitrator, bias or prejudice or conducting of the arbitral proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice, to refer to a few.
20. In Salil Dutta vs T.M. And M.C. Private Ltd reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185, it was held that it is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex- parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and or misdemeanor of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is not such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult.
21. In Man Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Gaon Sabha Jindpur & Others, 2012 (4) ILR (Del) 50, it was observed that the litigant has to be vigilant and he should contact and take part in the proceedings with due diligence and if negligence on the part of the litigant is established in a particular case, then the courts are not to come to the rescue of such applicants.
22. In Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. RFA No.497 of 2017 it was held that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 10 of 15 judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree.
23. In M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 4481, it is held that the arbitration proceedings and SARFAESI Act proceedings can go hand in hand. It was further held that the provisions of SARFAESI Act are a remedy in addition to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The two Acts are cumulative remedies to the secured creditors. While SARFAESI Act proceedings are in nature of enforcement proceeding, the arbitration proceedings would be in form of an adjudicatory process. In the event that the secured assets are insufficient to satisfy the debt, the secured creditor can proceed against other assets in execution against the debtor, after determination of pending outstanding amount by a competent forum i.e. in this case the arbitration.
24. In Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2018)14 SCC 783 also held that SARFAESI proceedings and Arbitration proceedings can be invoked simultaneously and one does not foreclose the other. It was further held that the provisions of SARFAESI and the Arbitration Act are complementary to each other.
DELAY CONDONED :
25. Since this petition U/s 34 of A&C Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of three months, therefore, an application was filed for condonation of delay. Vide order dated 19 th September, 2019, Ld. Predecessor of this court had condoned the delay in filing the petition subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-, to be deposited in DLSA, South, Saket, New Delhi.
Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 11 of 15ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION :-
26. The challenge by petitioner to the impugned award of the learned arbitral tribunal has to be examined in the light of the above principles.
27. It is noteworthy that on perusal of arbitral proceedings, it is apparent that on 03.01.2013, Shri Prashant Mathur, counsel for the petitioner appeared and filed the vakalatnama and sought time to file the reply Statement of Defence. Hearing before the learned Arbitrator thereafter fixed on 28.01.2013. However, on 28.01.2013, counsel for the petitioner again sought adjournment on the ground that the connected matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh. Ld. Arbitrator listed the matter for 14.02.2013 for filing reply to the claim and further noted that failing which no further opportunity shall be granted. On 11,03.2013, Shri Vinod Kumar, clerk of Shri Prashant Mathur, counsel for petitioner herein appeared. On 02.04.2013 and 12.04.2013 Shri Anuj Patankar, proxy counsel appeared for Shri Prashant Mathur but no reply was filed. On 23.04.2013, 09.05.2013, 05.06.2013, 08.07.2013 and 13.08.2013 no one had appeared for the petitioner herein before the Ld. Arbitrator. On 30.08.2013 again Mr. Anuj Patankar had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and again sought time. On 10.09.2013 no one had appeared for the petitioner. Ld. Arbitrator granted further adjournment on 08.10.2013, 18.11.2013 to Shri Prashant Mathur, counsel who sought adjournment on the ground that connected matter was pending before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Then on 12.12.2013, 17.01.2014, 17.02.2014, 20.03.2014, 05.04.2014, 06.05.2014, 08.07.2014 and 18.09.2014 no one had appeared for the petitioner herein. Ld. Arbitrator kept on issuing the notices to the counsel which were received back. On 07.10.2014, a fresh counsel, Shri Anurag Abhishek filed vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner Shri Balvir S. Sekhon Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 12 of 15 and again sought time to take instructions. Thereafter again no one appeared for the petitioner on 11.11.2014, 01.12.2014, 05.01.2015 and 04.02.2015, on which date the matter was kept in abeyance on the request of counsel for claimant.
28. It is matter of record that on 26.11.2016 the respondent No. 1 requested the Ld. Arbitrator to revive the Arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. Arbitrator issued fresh notice to the petitioner with directions to appear on 19.12.2016, which was duly delivered to petitioner as per the service report of speed post but the petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator on the date fixed and the Ld. Arbitrator adjourned the matter for 03.01.2017, on which date too, petitioner did not attend the proceedings, therefore, petitioner proceeded ex-parte and the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2017 for filing of ex-parte evidence. Thereafter ex-parte evidence furnished by the petitioner by way of an affidavit was taken on record by the Ld. Arbitrator and matter was adjourned to 16.09.2017 for arguments. Thus, track of the proceedings clearly shows the conduct of the petitioner and the number of opportunities granted to him by the Ld. Arbitrator.
29. It may be further noted that petitioner himself has admitted in his petition that he had duly received the notices of appointment of the Arbitrator and accordingly his counsel was appearing and seeking adjournment on his behalf on all the dates and proceedings held before the Ld. Arbitrator. Petitioner has also tried to shift his liability under the guise of negligence on the part of his advocate. Petitioner cannot be allowed to put the entire blame upon the advocate to show that he was totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings pending before the Ld. Arbitrator. This court is in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 herein that the petitioner chose to non-cooperate and did not file his reply despite Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 13 of 15 numerous opportunities given by the Ld. Arbitrator and therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not acceptable.
30. The submissions advanced by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the mandatory provisions of the SARFASEI Act, the arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 is not tenable and therefore the ex-parte Award is liable to set aside is devoid of any merits . Provisions of the SARFAESI Act are a remedy in addition to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Moreover, Act itself does not bar the application of other legislations and, therefore, different remedies can sustain simultaneously.
31. There is nothing on record to show any error apparent on the face of record or the fact that arbitrator has not followed principals of natural justice or the statutory legal position. This court cannot act as a court of appeal and reappraise the material/evidence and embark on a path by substituting its own view in support of the Arbitrator's view. The Arbitrator has dealt with the dispute within its scope. The parties to the lis had participated in the proceedings and were given proper notice and it was only the petitioner who failed to file any reply to the claim despite several opportunities .
32. It is apparent from the abovementioned submissions that despite the petitioner being aware of the continuation of the arbitral proceedings had chosen to stay away from the proceedings and nothing prevented him from appearing before the tribunal and he was under no incapacity to appear before the tribunal. Petitioner was not vigilant and he did not contact and take part in the proceedings with due diligence and negligence on his part is clearly established , therefore, court can not come to his rescue. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the Award which goes to the very root of the Award and Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 14 of 15 makes it illegal nor the award is against the public policy or against the established principle of law or natural justice. So, the award in question cannot be set aside.
33. In the result, this court finds no merits in the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. Award dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator is based on the settled principles of law, is reasonable and has been passed after due consideration of material on record as well as due application of mind, therefore, the award given by the Ld. Arbitrator cannot be interfered with and this petition U/s 34 of A&C Act deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Dictated and announced today i.e. 02.02.2021) VINAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date: 2021.02.02 19:02:01 +05'30' (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South District, Saket, New Delhi/02.02.2021 Balvir Singh Sekhon Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. & Ors. Page 15 of 15