Delhi High Court - Orders
Smt Babita Sharma & Anr vs Bansal Credits Limited on 14 October, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO (COMM) 143/2022
SMT BABITA SHARMA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through:
Mr Bharat Malhotra, Advocate along
with appellant in person.
versus
BANSAL CREDITS LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through:
Mr Prince Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 14.10.2022 CM APPL. 42268/2022
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 143/2022 and CM APPL. 42267/2022
3. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.05.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), whereby the learned Commercial Court had rejected the appellants' application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act').
4. The appellants had preferred the said application to challenge the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.2022 arbitral award dated 27.01.2020 (hereafter 'the impugned award'). In terms of the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹8,31,812.06/- along with the pendente lite and post award interest, in favour of the respondent.
5. The appellants had challenged the impugned award on several grounds. First, that the Arbitral Tribunal had not made any disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act and in terms of the Sixth Schedule to the A&C Act.
6. Second, he submitted that the learned Sole Arbitrator, constituting the Arbitral Tribunal, was ineligible to act as an arbitrator in terms of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It is stated that during the course of the arbitral proceedings, the learned Arbitrator was also acting as an arbitrator in at least three other arbitral proceedings involving the respondent. It is also alleged that he was named as an arbitrator at the instance of the respondent in respect of several other transactions.
7. Third, it is stated that the respondent had not issued any notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act.
8. Whilst the challenge laid to the impugned award is substantial, this Court also notes that there is no dispute that the appellants had availed of an interest-bearing loan of a sum of ₹11 lacs from the respondents. The appellants also do not dispute that they are liable to repay the said loan in equated monthly instalments including interest.
9. The dispute, essentially, relates to the quantum of the amount payable by the appellants to the respondents. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have arrived at a consensus. They agree that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.2022 the impugned award and the impugned order be set aside, subject to the parties being forthwith relegated to arbitration afresh. The reference of the arbitrator would be limited to the quantum of the amount payable by the appellants since the liability to repay the loan along with interest is not disputed. The parties also request that this Court appoint an independent arbitrator in these proceedings.
10. The scope of the present proceedings does not include appointing an arbitrator. However, to avoid any further delays and to assist the parties in resolution of the disputes, this Court considers it apposite to accede to the said request and appoint an arbitrator in these proceedings.
11. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Mr Deepak Joshi, Chartered Accountant (Mobile No. 989919115) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the quantum of amount payable by the appellants to the respondent in terms of the agreement in question. The appointment is subject to the learned Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
12. The Arbitrator shall be paid a consolidated fee of ₹1.0 lacs.
13. The Arbitral Tribunal shall endeavour to complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months.
14. The parties are at liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for further proceedings.
15. The impugned order and the impugned award are, accordingly, set aside. The application is also disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:18.10.202216. It is clarified that the above order is passed at the instance and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
17. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 14, 2022
RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:Dushyant Rawal
Signing Date:18.10.2022