Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Bell Finvest (India) Limited vs Au Small Finance Bank Limited on 6 January, 2023
Author: M.M. Sundresh
Bench: M.M. Sundresh
1
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24101/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-11-2022
in ARBP No. 453/2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi)
M/S BELL FINVEST (INDIA) LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.202946/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 06-01-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR
Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Our attention is drawn to Section 11 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). As per the said section, when the dispute relates to securitization, reconstruction or non- payment of any amount due including interest arises inter-se a bank or financial institution, asset re-construction company, or qualified Signature Not Verified institutional buyers, the dispute can be settled by Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.01.09 conciliation 09:20:32 IST Reason: or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and 2 Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
In the present case, petitioner no.1 - M/s Bell Finvest (India) Limited and respondent no.1 - M/s AU Small Finance Bank Limited are financial institutions. However, petitioner nos. 2 to 4, namely Bhupesh Mohanlal Rathod, Chirag Bhupesh Rathod and M/s Bell Consultancy Services India Private Limited, who are the guarantors, are not financial institutions. Be that as it may, we feel that the observations made in the impugned judgment that the disputes between two financial institutions relating to “payment of any amount due including interest”, would not include borrowed and loan amount may not be correct. However, we need not go into the said issue in detail, as we otherwise find that the petitioner(s) is not entitled to seek appointment of an arbitrator, since proceedings are already pending inter-se the parties, and the petitioner(s) has participated and contesting these proceedings. The petitioner(s) did not invoke the arbitration agreement. Application under Section 8 of the A&C Act was not filed in the proceedings.
Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition is dismissed. We clarify that the impugned judgment would not be read as a precedent on interpretation of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, albeit would be examined afresh and exhaustively.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
3