Delhi District Court
Inder Juneja vs Sbi Cards And Payment Service Limited on 14 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : DJ (COMMERCIAL-11)
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023
CNR No.: DLCT01-017341-2023
Inder Juneja
S/o Late Narsingh Dass Juneja
R/o A-2/A-9, Janakpuri
Delhi-110058
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited (SBICPSL)
Unit 401 & 402, 4th Floor
Aggarwal Millennium Tower
E1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place
Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 11.12.2023
Date of Arguments : 10.05.2024
Date of Judgment : 14.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside arbitral award dated 09.09.2022 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned award') in Arbitration Case No. ARB/WR/A/3135/22 titled as 'SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Inder Juneja' whereby sole arbitrator passed an award in the sum of Rs. 5,40,179.24/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2022 till realization and Rs. 10,000/- as cost in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 1 of 15
2. Facts leading to filing of the said application are that on 21.11.2002, the petitioner applied for credit card facility, vide application No. 0213200070648. Thereafter, the respondent issued a Credit Card No. 0004317575019355792 to the petitioner, vide A/c No. 0004317575011506939. The petitioner entered into 'SBI Cardholder Agreement' with the respondent. The petitioner failed to maintain financial discipline and his account became irregular. The petitioner failed to clear outstanding amount. An amount of Rs. 5,40,179.24/- was due against the petitioner. The said agreement provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause and appointed sole arbitrator, vide letter dated 09.05.2022. The respondent sent letter of invocation and appointment of arbitrator to the petitioner, through speed post, vide letter dated 10.05.2022.
ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS:
3. The proceedings conducted before Ld. Sole Arbitrator are briefly stated in a tabulated form, as under:
DATE PROCEEDINGS
09.05.2022 The respondent invoked arbitration clause and appointed sole
arbitrator.
19.07.2022 Sole arbitrator made disclosure under Section 12 (1) of the
Act and sent a copy thereof to the petitioner, and issued notice to the parties, vide post.
10.08.2022 The respondent filed statement of claim. The matter was adjourned for written statement of the petitioner. 20.08.2022 Sole arbitrator issued fresh notice to the petitioner, vide post. 05.09.2022 The petitioner was proceeded exparte. The respondent led exparte evidence.
09.09.2022 The respondent addressed final arguments. Sole arbitrator passed the impugned award.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 2 of 15 GROUNDS OF THE PETITION:
4. The petitioner impugned the arbitral award on the grounds, as under:
(a) The petitioner never used any card issued by the respondent and there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) Unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator is void and sole arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed and act as an arbitrator as held in Perkins Eastman Architect DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760;
(c) The petitioner did not receive any notice of appointment and initiation of arbitration proceedings; and
(d) The petitioner was not served with the impugned award.
APPEARANCE:
5. The Court has heard arguments of Mr. Rishi Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohd. Rashid, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and examined the pleadings and documents. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that on 09.08.2023, he received a notice in Execution (Comm.) No. 343/2023 titled as 'SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited vs. Inder Juneja' issued by the Court of Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Ld. District Judge (Commercial), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and thereafter, he appeared before him and filed objections on 21.09.2023. However, the said Court stayed the execution subject to deposit of 50% of the award amount, vide order dated 22.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996', vide OMP (Comm.) No. 59/2023 before the said Court. However, the said application was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application under Section 34 of the Act before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, vide order dated 21.10.2023.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 3 of 15
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner never received any notice of invocation of the arbitration clause and appointment of sole arbitrator. He contended that the petitioner never received any notice issued by sole arbitrator. He contended that sole arbitrator was ineligible to be appointed and act as sole arbitrator without consent of the petitioner in view of judgment in Perkins Eastman Architect DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. (supra). He contended that the petitioner never applied for or used any credit card and entered into any arbitration agreement with the respondent. He contended that the present application is within limitation. He contended that an arbitration award passed by an unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator without written consent of the petitioner is void. He contended that the impugned award deserves to be set-aside.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no illegality in the appointment of sole arbitrator. He contended that the respondent had issued a letter dated 10.05.2022 to the petitioner at his correct address. He contended that sole arbitrator issued two notices to the petitioner, vide notice dated 19.07.2022 and 22.08.2022. He contended that the petitioner never appeared before the sole arbitrator and challenged his jurisdiction. He contended that the petitioner could have challenged jurisdiction of sole arbitrator during arbitral proceedings and therefore, he cannot raise such objection in an application under Section 34 of the Act. He contended that the sole arbitrator disclosed his independence and impartiality and sent it to the petitioner, vide letter dated 19.07.2022. He contended that the petitioner never raised any objection to his independence and impartiality. He contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 4 of 15 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
9. The petitioner has challenged de jure ineligibility and appointment of sole arbitrator, therefore, this Court is not delving into factual matrix of the case.
10. The case of the respondent is that pursuant to an application seeking credit card facility, the respondent extended the said facility to the petitioner and the petitioner entered into 'SBI Cardholder Agreement' in that regard. As on 10.05.2022, an amount of Rs. 5,40,179.24/- was due against the petitioner.
Therefore, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause and appointed sole arbitrator. The arbitration clause contained in the said agreement is, as under:
"Governing Law & Arbitration • The Cardholder Agreement shall be governed by the laws of India and the courts of Delhi. • Any dispute, difference and / or claims arising out of in connection with or in relation to this Agreement, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any subsequent statutory amendment, if any, to the Act, by a sole arbitrator, whose appointment shall be made at the instance and discretion of the SBICPSL. The arbitrator appointed shall be competent to decide whether any matter or dispute or difference referred to the arbitrator falls within the purview of arbitration as provided for in this clause and / or should be under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
• Any arbitration award granted shall be final and binding on the Parties. The venue and seat of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be at New Delhi. • The Clause 10 shall survive termination of the Cardholder Agreement."
11. From perusal of the arbitration clause, it is evident that it is at the absolute discretion of the respondent to nominate a sole arbitrator for resolution of the disputes. It is further evident that any award passed by sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. The said clause does not contemplate any consent or concurrence of the petitioner to appointment of sole arbitrator.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 5 of 15
12. The respondent invoked arbitration clause and appointed sole arbitrator, vide letter dated 09.05.2022, as referred in order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the sole arbitrator. However, there is no such letter forming part of arbitral record. The respondent informed the petitioner regarding invocation of arbitration clause and appointment / reference of the dispute to the sole arbitrator, vide letter dated 10.05.2022, as under:
"5. By virtue of Clause 10 of Cardholder Agreement executed between the Cardholder and SBICPSL, all disputes arising between the parties, shall be resolved by arbitration with exclusive discretion of SBICPSL to appoint the Sole Arbitrator; hence, we on behalf of SBICPSL have referred the dispute to Mr. Jabbar Ali Advocate having his office at Ch. No. 179, C.L. Joseph Block, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054 to act as Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between SBICPSL and Cardholder."
13. Section 21 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' is, as under:
"21. Commencement of arbitral proceedings Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent."
14. In Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"30.....Thus, the inescapable conclusion on a proper interpretation of Section 21 of the Act is that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the notice under Section 21 of the Act by the claimant invoking the arbitration clause, preceding the reference of disputes to arbitration, is mandatory. In other words, without such notice, the arbitration proceedings that are commenced would be unsustainable in law."
15. It is, therefore, evident that the respondent had not given any prior notice to the petitioner, as required under Section 21 of the Act.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 6 of 15
16. The respondent invoked arbitration clause and appointed sole arbitrator, vide letter dated 09.05.2022 and intimation of appointment of sole arbitrator was given to the petitioner on 10.05.2022. It is evident that the respondent did not seek consent of the petitioner to appointment of sole arbitrator. The respondent did not issue any notice under Section 21 of the Act to the petitioner before invoking arbitration agreement. In the absence of such notice, the arbitration proceedings commenced by sole arbitrator are not sustainable in law.
17. As regards contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of sole arbitrator before him and he cannot challenge his jurisdiction before this Court, it can be stated that an objection to an unilateral appointment can be taken for the first time at any stage or in the collateral proceedings, including an application under Section 34 of the Act.
18. In Sriram Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3074, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"65. Further it has been held in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82 that an objection to the unilateral appointment can be taken for the first time at any stage or in the collateral proceedings, including an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996."
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment in Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gunocen Inc., FAO (Comm.) 31/2021 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.01.2024, that the respondent did not challenge jurisdiction of sole arbitrator or sought revocation of his authority despite receipt of notice dated 10.05.2022 regarding invocation of arbitration clause and appointment of sole arbitrator and notices issued by sole arbitrator on 19.07.2022 and 22.08.2022.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 7 of 15
20. Operative operation of the said judgment, as relied by Ld. Counsel for the respondent, is as under:
"35. The aforesaid dictum in Airport Metro Express (Supra) makes it clear that under Section 34 of the Act, scope of interference by the courts is very limited and only if there is any patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, then only it is required to be touched upon. In the present case, even if it is accepted that the appellants had raised objection to the appointment of learned Arbitrator by sending a letter to him but the fact remains that the appointment was never challenged under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 nor did the appellants participate in arbitral proceedings, despite having knowledge of the same. Instead of contesting the respondent's claim before the learned Arbitrator, the appellants remained mute spectator and only after losing the battle in arbitral proceedings, the appellants preferred appeal under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the appointment of Arbitrator as well as the Arbitral Award."
21. The judgment of Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gunocen Inc. (supra) came up for consideration before the High Court in Sunil Sethi vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1476. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act challenging an ex-parte award passed by a sole arbitrator. The contention of the respondent was that sole arbitrator had issued notices to the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear. For the sake of clarity, the contentions raised in that case are, as under:
"6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel has primarily rested his submissions on the fact that the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the respondent is hit by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd." [(2020) 20 SCC 760] and "TRF Limited v. Damodar Valley Corporation" [(2017) 8 SCC 377 :
AIR 2017 SC 3889] and judgment passed by this court in ARB.P. 133/2019 in "Geeta Poddar v. Satya Developers Private Limited".
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 8 of 15
7. Per contra, Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has not participated in the arbitration proceedings despite repeated notices. The objection raised by the petitioner today could have very well been raised at an early stage and the objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator at this belated stage cannot be entertained.
8. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in FAO (COMM) 31/2021 dated 23.01.2024 titled "Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Gunocen Inc."....."
22. In Sunil Sethi vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1476, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"14. The facts in the present case are similar. The Sole Arbitrator has been appointed by the respondent unilaterally. The same is clearly hit by the judgments of "Perkins Eastman Architects DPC" (supra) and "TRF Limited" (supra). As the appointment is barred u/s 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the whole arbitration proceedings are non-est in law."
23. In Bihar State Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation vs. National Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1842, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"12. Thus, no waiver by conduct is to be inferred from a party's participation in arbitral proceedings. In the present case, no such express written waiver is found in any of the documents on record, and Mr. Kanth also does not contend that such a document was ever executed by the petitioner. The facts, therefore, do not establish waiver of the petitioner's right.
13. It has been held in several Division Bench judgments that an Award passed by a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator is a nullity in law. The Award is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground alone."
24. The issue raised in the present case pertaining to ineligibility of unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator without written consent of the petitioners is no longer res integra.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 9 of 15
25. In Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. and Another vs. Chitta Ranjan Das, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 879, Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand held, as under:
"10.....Sub-section (2)(a)(v) of section 34 of the AC Act specifically provides that an arbitral Award can be set aside by the Court if the constitution of the arbitral Tribunal is not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. In "Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd."
(2005) 9 SCC 686, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the choice of the arbitral Tribunal and the reference of dispute to the Arbitrator both should be based on consent given either at the time of choosing the Arbitrator and making the reference or at the time of entering into the contract between the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if there is an arbitration clause but the parties did not agree for the appointment of the Arbitrator, in such cases also, one party cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Court and proceed to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator."
26. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapat, 2023 SCC Online Del 3148 (DB), an issue relating to enforcement of an ex-parte award passed by an unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator by the finance company without consent of the borrower was considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In that case, Ld. Executing Court was of the view that sole arbitrator was ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator in terms of Section 12(5) of the Act. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not seriously dispute that the arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the claimant was ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Act. He has largely focused his contentions on assailing the decision of the learned Commercial Court to award costs. It was also contended that the respondent was aware of the appointment of the arbitrator and had not raised any objection to such appointment; therefore the respondent is now precluded from challenging the impugned award.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 10 of 15
7. We find little merit in the aforesaid contentions. The proviso to Section 12(5) of the A&C Act is unambiguous. A party can waive its right to object to the ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act but the same is subject to two conditions. First, that the waiver is required to be by and done by an express agreement in writing; and second, that such agreement is entered into after the disputes have arisen. Unless both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, there can be no waiver of the ineligibility of an arbitrator.
10. The award rendered by an arbitrator who is ineligible to be appointed as such cannot be enforced.
12. In Govind Singh v. Satya Group Pvt. Ltd. :
2023/DHC/000081 this court held as under:
"In view of the above, the remaining question to be addressed is whether an arbitral award rendered by a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator is valid or binding on the parties. Clearly, the answer must be in the negative. The arbitral award rendered by a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator cannot be considered as an arbitral award. The ineligibility of the arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction. Plainly an arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal which lacks the inherent jurisdiction cannot be considered as valid. In the aforesaid view, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as being wholly without jurisdiction.
14. This Court finds no infirmity with the aforesaid view. A person who is ineligible to act an Arbitrator, lacks the inherent jurisdiction to render an Arbitral Award under the A&C Act. It is trite law that a decision, by any authority, which lacks inherent jurisdiction to make such a decision, cannot be considered as valid. Thus, clearly, such an impugned award cannot be enforced."
27. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 47322/2023 against the judgment in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapat was dismissed on 17.05.2023. The relevant part of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is, as under:
"From paragraph 6 of the impugned order, it appears to be an admitted position that the Arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 11 of 15
28. In Smaaash Leisure Ltd. vs. Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8322, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"21. The primordial question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned Awards are liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by the Respondents and was thus ineligible by virtue of Section 12 of the 1996 Act as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court, to conduct the arbitral proceedings and render the impugned Awards.
22. Arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution mechanism chosen by the parties to a contract incorporating the Arbitration Agreement, wherein a third party is chosen and appointed to resolve the disputes and which is why Arbitrators are commonly referred to as creatures of a contract. The ethos and first principle on which the arbitration mechanism functions is party autonomy i.e. freedom to choose an Arbitrator acceptable to both parties to the agreement, embedded in the principle of natural justice that 'no man can be a judge of his own cause' i.e. 'Nemo judex in causa sua'.
23. In its landmark judgment in Perkins (supra), the Supreme Court crystallized the position in law that unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator will be vitiated under Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act as it hits the principle of autonomy.....
38. This gets me to the next plank of argument of the Respondents that challenge to the impugned Awards should not be entertained in a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, on the ground of alleged ineligibility attached to the appointment of the sole Arbitrator. It is no longer res integra that an arbitral award rendered by an Arbitrator, who is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator cannot be termed as an arbitral award and thus not binding on the parties.....
39. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator goes to the root of the jurisdiction and vitiates the award. Such is the threshold of this disability that in a recent judgment in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had interfered at the stage of execution of the arbitral award and upheld the order of the learned Commercial Court, holding that an award rendered by a person who is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 12 of 15 In view of these judgments, in my considered view, the impugned awards cannot be sustained in law, solely on the ground of ineligibility of the learned Arbitrator and are accordingly set aside."
29. In Babu Lal and Another vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7239, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, as under:
"8. It is an admitted position that the respondent Company nominated a Sole Arbitrator on its own without recourse to Court. Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC. (supra) has held that there cannot be a unilateral appointment or nomination of an Arbitrator by a party interested in the dispute. Reference has to be to an independent person.
9. In the instant case, admittedly, nomination of the Sole Arbitrator was done by the respondents on their own without any concurrence from the appellant. Letter dated 18.10.2021 is merely an intimation to the appellant of nomination of the Sole Arbitrator. Said nomination was without reference to the Court in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
10. Clearly, an award rendered by an ineligible Arbitrator would be a nullity as has been held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Narendra Kumar Prajapat, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3148.
11. In the instant case since the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal was unilateral and without recourse to Court, the Award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal would also be a nullity. The Trial Court has clearly erred in not appreciating that the appointment was unilateral and consequently, the Award was a nullity."
30. Adverting to the facts of this case, the respondent had not given any notice of invocation of arbitration clause preceding the reference of the dispute to sole arbitrator.
31. The respondent unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. The petitioner never consented in writing to refer the dispute to sole arbitrator. Sole arbitrator was ineligible to act as an arbitrator.
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 13 of 15
32. The arbitral award passed by a sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by the respondent cannot be considered as an arbitral award.
33. Such unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator without consent of the petitioners affects 'party autonomy' and 'freedom of the parties'. Any objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator goes to the root of the jurisdiction of such arbitrator.
34. An arbitration award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is without jurisdiction and non-est. The impugned award is liable to be set-aside as being wholly without jurisdiction. CONCLUSION:
35. Therefore, the application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' is allowed. Consequently, the impugned award dated 09.09.2022 in Arbitration Case No. ARB/WR/A/3135/22 titled as 'SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Inder Juneja' is set-aside.
36. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2024.05.14
16:54:36
+0530
Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II
on this 14th May, 2024 DJ (Commercial-11) (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 14 of 15
Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited CNR No.: DLCT01-017341-2023 OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 14.05.2024 Proceedings convened through Video Conferencing. Present : Mr. Rishi Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohd. Rashid, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Vide separate judgment, the application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' is allowed. Consequently, the impugned award dated 09.09.2022 in Arbitration Case No. ARB/WR/A/3135/22 titled as 'SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. vs. Inder Juneja' is set-aside.
Digitally
signed by
File be consigned to record room. SANJAY SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.05.14
16:54:52
+0530
Sanjay Sharma-II
DJ (Commercial-11)
Central, THC, Delhi
14.05.2024
OMP (Comm.) No. 176/2023 Inder Juneja vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. Page No. 15 of 15