Delhi District Court
Shri Baldev Singh vs M/S Indusind Bank on 25 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL), NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
OMP (Comm.) No. 07/2019 (Old No.1912/2019)
Shri Baldev Singh,
S/o Shri Hari Singh,
R/o K-1158, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi-110033. ...... Petitioner / Objector.
VERSUS
1. M/s Indusind Bank,
Through its Branch Manager,
At 115-116, G. N. Chetty Road,
T-Nagar, Chennai -600017.
Also at :
43, Community Centre, Bhagria House,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi. ..... Respondent No.1.
2. Shri G. Ashokparthy,
Advocate, Sole Abritrator,
Orient Chambers, 4th & 5th Floors,
No.90/73, Armenian Street,
Chennai-600001. ..... Respondent No.2.
Date of Institution : 12.04.2019
Date of Final Arguments : 25.09.2021
Date of Decision : 25.09.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner/objector namely, Shri Baldev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') has filed the petition/objections on 12.04.2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Ex-Parte Award dated 16.03.2015 (hereinafter referred OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 1 of 17 to as the 'Award'), passed by the Sole Arbitrator namely, Advocate Shri G. Ashokparthy i.e. respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitrator') in favour of M/s IndusInd Bank i.e. respondent no.1 in the Arbitration case / proceedings titled as "IndusInd Bank Ltd. Vs. Sh. Tarlochan Singh & Anr".
2. The petitioner has challenged the Award on the following grounds:-
(a) that he did not get any opportunity to participate in the Arbitration proceedings and alleged that there was connivance between the respondent no.1 and the Arbitrator as the Arbitrator did not take into consideration that there was no occasion for the respondent no.1 or for the Arbitrator to initiate the Arbitral proceedings, because as such, there was no dispute between the parties;
(b) further, the copy of the Award was never served upon him and has alleged that the Award is merely a piece of paper as it was not published;
(c) further, the respondent no.1 had misled the Arbitrator about the pending dues against the loan amount as given by the respondent no.1 to Shri Tarlochan Singh, who was the borrower. He has also submitted that even after initiation of the arbitration proceedings, Sh. Tarlochan Singh continued to repay the loan amount to the respondent no.1, about which, the respondent no.1 did not disclose to the Arbitrator and hence, the respondent no.1 had suppressed material facts from the Arbitrator as the OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 2 of 17 respondent no.1 did not revise its claim, though, it had been receiving the installments from Sh. Tarlochan Singh. Further, there was no occasion for respondent no.1 to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator as Shri Tarlochan Singh, was making payment of the loan amount to the respondent no.1;
(d) further, the borrower Shri Tarlochan Singh kept the petitioner in dark as Sh. Tarlochan Singh obtained his signatures on certain documents on the pretext of opening the bank account and the petitioner, being an illiterate person trusted Shri Tarlochan Singh and the bank officials, who were in connivance with each other and hence, the petitioner signed the documents;
(e) the petitioner has also submitted that he never received either the letter of appointment of the Sole Arbitrator or any legal notice regarding the initiation of the Arbitration proceedings as mentioned in the Award and alleged that the Arbitrator arbitrarily proceeded the matter as 'Ex-Parte' against him;
(f) further, the respondent no.1 misled the Arbitrator and even the Arbitrator also did not apply his judicial mind and he gave unwarranted favour to the respondent no.1. He has alleged that the Arbitrator illegally and arbitrarily passed the Award in favour of the respondent no.1, wherein the Arbitrator awarded exorbitant interest in favour of respondent no.1.
The petitioner has also alleged that the Arbitrator is biased and he did not follow the rules of law and further, the Award is contrary to law.
OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 3 of 17 (g) The petitioner has also alleged that the borrower Shri Tarlochan
Singh had deliberately and intentionally, in connivance with the respondent no.1, furnished his address as 'CW-1/198, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi-110042', though, his actual address is 'CCW- 1/197, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi-110042' and hence, the notice of the Arbitrator or of the Court could not be served upon him.
(h) The petitioner has also contended that the respondent no.1 filed an Execution Petition, about which he came to know only through the original borrower namely, Shri Tarlochan Singh. He has further submitted that he is illiterate and could not understand the consequences of passing of the Award against him.
(i) The petitioner has further submitted that he came to know about the said Award only after he appointed a counsel in the present case on 29.03.2019 and he also came to know that the Execution Petition regarding the said Award dated 16.03.2015 is pending before the Court of Ms. Kiran Gupta, Ld. ADJ (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, wherein learned ADJ had ordered for attachment of his movable property.
3. The petitioner / objector has further contended that the petition / objections is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, are filed within the period of limitation and has prayed that the Arbitral Award dated 16.03.2015 may be set aside and his OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 4 of 17 petition/ objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, may be allowed.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the Advocate Sh. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that he does not want to file any formal reply to the petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on behalf of the respondent no.1 and he would straightway argue on the petition / objections.
5. I have heard final arguments as advanced by Advocate Shri Naresh Kumar Bansal, Learned counsel for the petitioner / objector and Advocate Shri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by them. I have also gone through the material as placed on record.
6. Before proceeding any further, it would be appropriate to discuss that Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides as under :
"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award -
(1) .......
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if -
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof 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 OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 5 of 17
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a 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
(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 an award 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.]"
7. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides as under :
"34(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 6 of 17 said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."
8. Before proceeding any further, it needs to be discussed even at the cost of repetition that as per record, the Ex-Parte Award under challenge was passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 16.03.2015 and the petitioner / objector Sh. Baldev Singh, who is the co-borrower has filed the petition / objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on 12.04.2019 i.e. after a period of more than four years.
9(a). It also needs to be discussed that in the detailed Arbitral proceedings and Award, the Arbitrator has also mentioned that as per Clause 23 of the Loan Agreement dated 25.04.2013, he was appointed by the respondent no.1 vide its letter dated 30.07.2014 to act as the 'Sole Arbitrator' to adjudicate the dispute and matters arising out of the agreement, between it and the respondents namely, Mr. Tarlochan Singh and Mr. Baldev Singh (i.e. the present petitioner / objector) and the Arbitrator in his proceedings also mentioned that the claimant (who is the respondent no.1 in this case), vide its letter dated 06.08.2014 had also filed the Statement of Claim alongwith the supporting documents to recover a sum of Rs.6,29,510/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and costs against both the respondents i.e. Sh. Tarlochan Singh and Sh. Baldev Singh (i.e. the present petitioner).
(b) The Arbitrator has also mentioned in his proceedings that after receiving the letter of appointment dated 30.07.2014, he sent a letter OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 7 of 17 expressing his consent to act as the Arbitrator in terms of the aforesaid agreement on 04.08.2014 and also declared that :-
"I had in and my by hearing notice for the hearing dated 11.09.2014, declared that as per Section 12(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no circumstance that exist that gives rise to justifiable doubts as to my independence or impartiality in resolving the disputes referred to me."
(c) Further, the Arbitrator also discussed the brief facts of the case before him and mentioned that the claimant (i.e. respondent no.1 herein), during the course of its business had lent out a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- to Sh. Tarlochan Singh i.e. the borrower and to Sh. Baldev Singh i.e. the Co- borrower (the petitioner herein), for which the said parties executed an agreement, vide which, the borrower and the co-borrower agreed to pay charges of Rs.2,22,750/- to the claimant and accordingly, a total sum of Rs.8,97,750/- was payable by them to the claimant i.e. respondent no.1 in 48 installments. Further, the said agreement also contained 'Interest' and 'Additional interest clause' in case of delay in making the payments by them. The Arbitrator also mentioned that the borrower was very irregular in payment of installments and the liability of the Co-borrower was Co- extensive with the borrower as per the claimant (i.e. respondent no.1 herein).
(d) The Arbitrator also mentioned in his proceedings that the notice of the proceedings were sent to both the respondents i.e. Shri Tarlochan Singh and Shri Baldev Singh (who is the petitioner / objector herein) at the addresses as mentioned in the agreement, which were their last known addresses and he also observed that the same was in OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 8 of 17 accordance with the Agreement and also as per Section 3 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator has also discussed about the various efforts to serve notices upon the said respondents including the present petitioner, which are as under :-
"
Description Date Status of service on Status of service on the 1st respondent the 2nd respondent Ist hearing notice 11.09.2014 Received Received Proceedings and 12.02.2015 Returned Received Notice for hearing Proceedings 12.02.2015 Returned Sent "
10 (a). The Arbitrator had also mentioned that despite sending several notices to the respondents namely, i.e. Shri Tarlochan Singh and Shri Baldev Singh (i.e. the present petitioner), they chose not to appear before him in person or through their authorized representative and further, they also did not file any objections before him. He also observed that service on both the said respondents (one of whom is the present petitioner/objector herein) was deemed to be complete in pursuance of submissions of the representative of the claimant as per provisions of Section 3 (1) (b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 12 of the General Clauses Act as the communication was properly addressed to both the respondents (including the present petitioner) by sending the same by registered post. The Arbitrator also mentioned that :-
" The object of referring a dispute to the arbitration is due to its efficacy and speedy disposal of matters. The respondents being oblivious have not availed the sufficient opportunities. Therefore this Tribunal has no other option but to proceed exparte and decide the claim of the claimant on the basis of available documents placed before this Tribunal, by virtue of section 25(c) of the Arbitration & OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 9 of 17 Conciliation Act, 1996 which reads thus:
a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the Arbitral Tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it In the above circumstance it is deemed fit by this Tribunal proceeded as per Section 25 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and resolve the disputes on merits in the absence of the respondents."
(b) Thereafter, the Arbitrator framed the issues and after due consideration and after following due procedure, the Arbitrator passed the Award dated 16.03.2015, which is under challenge.
11(a). Now, so far as the present petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, is concerned, it is not out of place to discuss here that though, the petitioner Sh. Baldev Singh has contended in Para-6 of his petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 that he came to know through the original borrower namely, Shri Tarlochan Singh, about the Execution Petition as filed by the respondent no.1, however, in Para-7 of his petition/objections, he has mentioned that he came to know about the said Award only after appointing a counsel on 29.03.2019. He has also stated that only then, he came to know that the Execution Petition pertaining to the Award dated 16.03.2015 is pending in the court of Ms. Kiran Gupta, learned ADJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in which learned ADJ had ordered for attachment of movable properties.
(b) It would not be out of place to mention here that from the same, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that as such, the OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 10 of 17 petitioner / objector is himself confused about the date of knowledge of passing of the Award against him. On one hand, he has stated that he came to know about the Execution Petition through Shri Tarlochan Singh, i.e. the borrower, but nowhere whispers about the date or month or even the year when Sh. Tarlochan Singh told him about it and on the other hand, the petitioner / objector himself has stated that he came to know about the Award only after appointing a counsel on 29.03.2019. As such, the petitioner is not able to state as to how and when he came to know about the Award because as per his own contention as made in Para-6, he came to know about the Execution Petition through Shri Tarlochan Singh, but, he has nowhere mentioned as to when the said fact came to his knowledge and the petitioner himself has also submitted that he came to know about the Award on 29.03.2019 only when he appointed an Advocate.
12(a). Further, from the perusal of the Arbitral proceedings, it is shown on record that the Arbitrator had repeatedly sent notices to both the respondents including the present petitioner / objector herein also, regarding the referral of the dispute by the claimant (i.e. respondent no.1 herein), regarding initiation of the Arbitral proceedings. Further, on 26.12.2018, the Arbitrator also observed that the notices were sent through registered post also at the last known address of the petitioner herein and further, the Arbitrator, before proceeding the present petitioner as Ex- Parte, after not only perusing the 'Tracking Report' but also the affidavit of the claimant (i.e. the respondent no.1 herein) and observed that the statement of claim and documents were also sent by it at the residential OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 11 of 17 address of the present petitioner and the Arbitrator also mentioned that the notice were sent to the respondents (including the present petitioner herein) at their addresses.
From perusal of the proceedings of the Arbitrator, it is also revealed that on that day, though, the claimant (i.e. respondent no.1 herein) prayed before the Arbitrator that the respondents (one of whom is the present petitioner herein) be proceeded as Ex-Parte and Award may be passed in favour of the claimant (i.e. the respondent no.1 herein), yet, the learned Arbitrator preferred to send a third and final notice dated 26.12.2018 also to the present petitioner / objector herein by registered post at his last known address for 16.01.2019 and on 16.01.2019, the learned Arbitrator also observed that none had appeared for the respondents (including the petitioner / objector herein) and the petitioner did not file any objections and hence, on the basis of record, the Arbitrator proceeded the respondents (including the petitioner / objector herein) as Ex-Parte and after perusal of record and the documents filed by the claimant i.e. the respondent no.1 herein, the learned Arbitrator passed the Award on 29.03.2019.
(b) As per provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which is already discussed earlier, a period of three months is available to the party to challenge the Award but if court is satisfied that the objector was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition / objections, then, the same can be entertained within a further period of 30 days, but not thereafter, in any situation.
OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 12 of 17 (c) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases titled as (1) 'Union of
India Vs. Popular Constructions (2001) 8 SCC 470' and (2) 'State of H.P. Vs. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210' observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and also laid down that the court can condone the delay of maximum 30 days on showing sufficient cause beyond three months period allowed to the party and thereafter, even the court has no power to condone further delay even if sufficient cause is shown.
13 (a). It needs to be discussed here that the address as mentioned by the petitioner / objector Sh. Baldev Singh himself in the petition filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is the same, which address, the respondent no.1 herein had filed before the Arbitrator and on the said address of the petitioner herein, the notices, through registered post were repeatedly sent by the Arbitrator.
(b) From above, it is crystal clear that repeated notices were also sent by the Arbitrator to the present petitioner / objector as well, at last known address of the present petitioner, however, he, preferred neither to appear before the Arbitrator nor filed any objections and he did not contest the matter before the Arbitrator and hence, he was rightly proceeded as Ex-Parte by the Arbitrator.
Accordingly, in considered opinion of the court, in the given OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 13 of 17 facts and circumstances, it cannot be stated that no notice regarding the initiation of the Arbitral proceedings was sent to the present petitioner / objector or by the Arbitrator at correct address of the petitioner herein (who was one of the respondent before the Arbitrator) and it cannot be stated that no effort was made to serve the present petitioner at his correct address. In considered opinion of the court, it is shown that all possible efforts were made by the Arbitrator to serve the present petitioner at his address, which is the same address as mentioned by the petitioner himself in the petition / objections filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and accordingly, it can't be presumed that the present petitioner was not properly served.
Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that he came to know of the Arbitral Award on 29.03.2019 does not sound cogent or convincing and except his oral contention, the petitioner has not filed anything to show his bonafide about his knowledge of passing of Award against him on 29.03.2019. In fact, the petitioner has not filed even a single document or anything in this regard to show the knowledge of the Award on 29.03.2019 as claimed and the factum that contention of the petitioner that Sh. Tarlochan Singh told him about the Award can't be overlooked or ignored and he has not stated the date when Sh. Tarlochan Singh apprised him of passing of the Award. Further, from the proceedings of the Arbitrator, it is clear that notices were sent to the petitioner Sh. Baldev Singh at the same address as mentioned by the petitioner in the petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 14 of 17 (c) In considered opinion of the Court, the submissions of the
petitioner about knowledge of the Award are contrary to each other and in the given facts and circumstances, the possibility that the petitioner came to know of the Arbitral Award earlier to 29.03.2019 cannot be ruled out. Further, as already discussed earlier at length, from the proceedings of the Arbitrator, it is clear that notice of Arbitral proceedings was duly sent to the petitioner / objector herein repeatedly on the same address as given by the petitioner in the petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 but the petitioner chose not to appear before the Arbitrator and accordingly, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is clear on record that the petitioner Sh. Baldev Singh had knowledge about the initiation and conducting of arbitration proceedings by the learned Arbitrator.
Further, as per record, the petitioner / objector has filed the petition / objections under Section 34 of the Act only on 12.04.2019 i.e. after more than four years of passing of the Award and he has also not moved any application of any sort for condonation of delay in filing the petition/objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
14. In the case in hand, the Award was passed on 16.03.2015 and as per record, the present petition / objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed on 12.04.2019. It would not be out of place to mention here that as such, the petitioner / objector OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 15 of 17 has preferred not to move any application at all for condonation of delay in filing the petition / objections under Section 34 of the Act and further, he has also miserably failed to show that repeated notices were not sent to him by the Arbitrator about which the Arbitrator has discussed at length in his proceedings and the petitioner / objector could not show anything on record that the proceedings of the Arbitrator are fake or fabricated or biased or against the Principles of natural justice or are contrary to law.
15(a). In the given facts and circumstances, in the considered opinion of the court, as such, there is nothing at all on record even remotely to condone the delay in filing the petition / objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
(b) As per record, the petitioner / objector Sh. Baldev Singh has miserably failed to show anything on record as to how and why the Arbitrator was biased against him or that the Arbitration agreement was not valid under the Law or that he was not given proper notice of the arbitral proceedings or that the Arbitral Award dealt with a 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 or that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or the subject matter of the dispute was not capable of settlement by Arbitration under the law for the time being in force or the Arbitral Award is in conflict with the public policy of India or the making of the OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 16 of 17 Award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or that it is in violation of Section 75 or Section 81 or the Award is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian Law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice or that there is contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law or that the Award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the Award or that the principles of natural justice were not followed.
16. In considered opinion of the court, in view of totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of settled proposition of Law, in considered opinion of the court, no sufficient ground at all is made out to allow the petition / objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, not only because it was filed after the stipulated period and no application of condonation of delay is filed but also because the petitioner / objector could not show anything on record, if at all there is any merits in the present petition / objections. Hence, the present petition / objections is accordingly, dismissed on merits. No order is passed as to costs.
File be consigned to the Record Room, as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Announced today i.e. on 25.09.2021. (BARKHA GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court) North:ROHINI:DELHI/25.09.2021 OMP (Comm.) No. 7/2019 (Old No.1912/2019) Shri Baldev Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & Anr. 17 of 17