Delhi District Court
Tarun Bassan vs Intec Capital Ltd on 9 May, 2024
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-03 SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
OMP (Comm.) No. 04/2024
1. Tarun Bassan
S/o Sh. Parvez Kumar
Prop. Of :
M/s Riddhima International
R/o B-6/258, Old Madhopuri, Street No. 4,
Ludhiana, Punjab-141408
2. Mansi Bassan
W/o Sh. Amit Sharma
R/o B-6/258, Old Madhopuri, Street No. 4,
Ludhiana, Punjab-141408
........petitioners
Vs.
Intec Capital Ltd.
Having office at :
701, Manjusha Building, 57,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
........respondent
09.05.2024 Order
1. Vide this Order I shall dispose of Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") objections filed by petitioner/objectors Tarun Bassan and Mansi Bassan against the Arbitral Award dated 05.07.2023 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Ved Prakash, Advocate.
2. Copy of this petition was served upon the respondent/Award Holder Company. No separate reply was filed to the objection petition in hand by the respondent despite opportunity.
Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 1 of 14
3. I have heard arguments of Sh. Sunil Singh, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Pooja Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for Respondent. The arbitral record was also produced by Ld. Sole Arbibtraor personally and I have perused the case file.
Respondent/claimant's case:
4. Case of the respondent as per respondent company as per claim petition filed before Ld. Sole Arbitrator on 04.08.2022 is that it is a non- banking financial company and is in the business of extending loans for purchase of machines and equipments. Respondents who are referred to as Principal Borrower and Guarantor respectively applied for financial assistance. Upon processing, loan of Rs. 6,44,953/- was sanctioned on 26.08.2014 @ 14% interest per annum. The loan was payable in 16 EMIs. The loan Agreement contain Arbitration Clause as per which claimant company reserved the right to unilaterally appoint the Tribunal with seat in New Delhi. It is pleaded that petitioner/borrower were irregular in payments and as such on 04.05.2022, claimant company was constrained to recall the loan when the debit balance stood at Rs. 7,62,055/-. Arbitral proceedings were initiated vide legal notice dated 29.03.2022. Respondent NBFC unilaterally appointed Sole Arbitrator Sh. Ved Prakash, Advocate as the Arbitration Tribunal. In this backdrop, claim petition was filed with following reliefs :
Reliefs :-
(a) Respondent to pay the claimant a sum of Rs. 7,62,055/- alongwtih pendent- lite and future interest @ 14% p.a. and further default interest rate of 3% per month, in favour of the claimant and against the respondent.
(b) To grant permission to the claimant to sell the hypothecated machine in as is where Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 2 of 14 is condition either by a private sale or by an auction sale.
(c) For costs; and (d) For such further or other reliefs as the Hon'ble Arbitrator may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
5. Objector did not participate, Proceedings were carried ex-parte followed by passing of awards in hand which granted the following reliefs:
Reliefs :-
(a) That the respondent shall pay jointly and severally to the claimant a sum of Rs.
7,62,055/- with further interest @ 14% p.a till the payment is received or recovered.
(b) That, the lenders/Claimants are also entitle to sell the hypothecated Machine by way of Private Sale or by an auction sale.
(c) That, the lenders/Claimants are also entitled to recover from the respondents all costs and expenses which they have incurred for the Arbitration and which are separately calculated as per the attached schedule to this Award.
Objector's case :
6. Case of the Objectors as per petition in hand that it is not denied that they have availed loan from respondent company but as per them, they never been served with any notice from the Arbitral Tribunal and were wrongly proceeded ex-parte. It is pleaded that Arbitrator was appointed in violation of Section 12(5) r/w Schedule 7 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. At the onset it would be handy to have a glance at the statutory provision qua the objections which can be raised by the petitioner under Section 34 of "The Act." Section 34 of "The Act" is reproduced as under:
Section 34 Application for setting aside arbitral award. --
(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 the Court only if--
Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 3 of 14
(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
(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. --Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii) it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81.
(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 said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
[(5) An application under this Section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.] [(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 4 of 14 event within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.]
8. The aspect of maintainability and executabiliy of this Petition seeking Execution of Ex-Parte Award passed by a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator as raised can be discussed and decided under following heads:
I. Decree/Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
II. Objective behind inclusion of Section 12 (5) and Schedule 7 in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.
III. Unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is Anti-thesis to "Nemo Judex in causa cua"- No one can be a Judge in his own case.
IV. Conclusion Now I will endeavour to discuss these aspects and submissions made on behalf of parties at length.
(I) Decree/Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
1. Thus the question to be dealt by the Executing Court necessarily restricts itself to the execution part of the decree as long as the same is lawful, executable and is a not non est or nullity. The Law in this regard is no longer res integra. There are several authoritative pronouncements in this regard.
2. In case title Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507, Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that:
18.It is settled law that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 5 of 14 invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party."
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. In case title Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Prakash1 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati while speaking in for the Bench ruled, "The validity of a decree can be challenged in execution proceedings only on the ground that the court which passed the decree lacked inherent jurisdiction. A court is said to be lacking in jurisdiction when it could not have seisin of the case because the subject matter was wholly foreign to its jurisdiction or that the defendant was dead at the time of institution of the suit or when the suit was decreed. Inherent lack of jurisdiction means a power or jurisdiction which does not at all exist or vest in a court. A court lacks inherent jurisdiction when the subject matter is wholly foreign to its ambit and is totally unconnected with its recognized jurisdiction."
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. In case title Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan2 Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled, "It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdictiion is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties."
(Emphasis Supplied)
5. In Case title Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur Vs. Gokul Narain 3, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
15. A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction over the subject- matter or on any other ground which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction, is a nullity. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the Court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party."
(Emphasis Supplied) 1 AIR 1977 SC 1201 2 1954 Latest Caselaw 43 SC 3 AIR 1996 SC 1819 , 1996 Latest Caselaw 332 SC Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 6 of 14
6. In case title Saraswat Trading Agency Vs. Union of India4, it is held by High Court that, "If Court finds that decree is a nullity, Court cannot proceed to execute it. A decree which is a nullity in the eye of law is no decree and, hence, even by consent of the parties such a decree cannot be executed by the Court. But for this reason it cannot be denied the remedy available to it under Section 47. If the Court finds that the decree is a nullity, the Court cannot proceed to execute it, and it is the duty of the Court to hold that the decree is not executable."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. In Daland Uchha Bidyapith Vs. State of Orissa5, it is held that, "Execution cannot be refused except in case of nullity Execution of the decree ought not to be refused, unless the decree itself is a nullity."
8. In case title Brakewel Automative Components (India Private) Ltd.
Vs. P.R. Selvam Alagppan6, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled at para 23 that, "Through this view has echoed time out of number in similar pronouncements of this Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jain Prakash University and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2552, while dwelling on the scope of Section 47 of the Code, it was ruled that the powers of the court thereunder are quite different and much narrower than those in appeal/revision or review. The exercise of power under Section 47 of the Code is microscopic and lied in a very narrow inspection hole and an executing court can allow objection to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and is a nullity, apart from the ground that it is not capable of execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree unexecutable after its passing. None of the above eventualities as recognised in law for rendering a decree unexecutable, exists in the case in hand. For obvious reasons, we do not wish to burden this adjudication by multiplying the decisions favouring the same view."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. In Bijendra Kumar Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Ors. 7 Hon'ble Delhi High Court while discussing another plea between Section 47 CPC 4 AIR 2004 Cal 267 (270) 5AIR 1993 Ori 257:1993 (1) Ori LR 77 6 (2017) 5 SCC 371, 2017 Latest Caselaw 235 SC 7Ex.FA no. 38 of 2012 dated 15.10.2014 Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 7 of 14 and Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 observed, "An Award which is a nullity being against public policy can always be challenged even at the stage of execution in as much as, if we take a most extreme example that an Award is passed that 'A' will steal money for 'B' then surely 'B' cannot enforce the Award/decree stating that 'A' should give him particular amount of money which was to be stolen by 'B' for being given to 'A'."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10.As far as the aspect of seeking execution of a ill-gotten ex-parte arbitral award from a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is concerned, the law has been laid by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In case titled Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Narender Kumar Prajapat and Ors., 2023 Latest Caselaw 709 Del, an offshoot of Order passed by this Court on 23.11.2022. The relevant text as follow :-
"13. The Learned Commercial Court has held that an award rendered by a person who is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator by virtue of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the A & C Act is a Neutral Citation Number :
2023:DHC:3705-DB nullity and therefore, cannot be enforced. It has accordingly, dismissed the enforcement petition under Section 36 of the A&C Act with the cost quantified as Rs. 25,000/-.
"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."
The said order of Hon'ble High Court is also upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.47322/2023 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapat.
11.In case titled Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Khokher Enterprises EFA (Comm.) 5/2023, Hon'ble High Court upheld this Court's order and observed that:
"An award rendered by a person - who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator by virtue of Section 12 (5) of the A&C Act - is a nullity, and, therefore cannot be Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 8 of 14 enforced".
(II) Objective behind inclusion of Section 12 (5) and Schedule 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.
12.Section 12(5) was introduced in this 1996 Act by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 notified with effect from 23.10.2015 whereby additional ground for challenging the appointment of Arbitrator was introduced with simultaneous inclusion of Schedule 7. For ready reference Section 12(5) of the Act and the 7th Schedule are reproduced hereunder:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 12(5): Grounds of Challenge Notwithstanding any prior agreements to the contrary, any person whose relationship with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in Schedule 7 shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.
"Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them waive the applicability of this suit by an expressed agreement in writing."
"The Seventh Schedule"
i. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.
ii. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.
iii. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties.
iv. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties.
v. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration. vi. The arbitrator's law firm had a previous but terminated involvement in the case without the arbitrator being invoked himself or herself. vii.The arbitrator's law firm currently has a significant commercial relationship with one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 9 of 14 viii. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party even though neither the arbitrator nor his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom. ix. The arbitrator has a close family relationship with one of the parties and in the case of companies with the persons in the management and controlling the company.
x. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or an affiliate in one of the parties. xi. The arbitrator is a legal representative of an entity that is a party in the arbitration.
xii. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence in one of the parties. xiii.The arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or the outcome of the case.
xiv. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party, and the arbitrator or his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.
Relationship of the Arbitrator to the dispute xv. The arbitrator has given legal advice or provided an expert opinion on the dispute to a party or an affiliate of one of the parties. xvi. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case. Arbitrator's direct or indirect interest in the dispute xvii. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is privately held. xviii.A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in the outcome of the dispute.
xix. The arbitrator or a close family member of the arbitrator has a close relationship with a third party who may be liable to recourse on the part of the unsuccessful party in the dispute.
Explanation 1-The term "close family member" refers to a spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner.
Explanation 2- The term "affiliate" encompasses all companies in one group of companies including the parent company.
Explanation 3- For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that it may be the practice in certain specific kinds of arbitration, such as maritime or commodities arbitration, to draw arbitrators from a small, specialized pool. If in such fields it is the custom and practice for parties frequently to appoint the same arbitrator in different cases, this is a relevant fact to be taken into account while applying the rules set out above.
(III) Unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is Anti-thesis to "Nemo Judex in causa cua"- "No one can be a Judge in his own case".
13."Nemo Judex in causa cua"- "No one can be a Judge in his own case" is one of the most fundamental Principles of Natural Justice which is soul and fulcrum of any judicial or quasi-judicial process. Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 10 of 14 As opined by Law Commission of India in its Reports, Parliament of India in the 2015 Amendment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and repeatedly ruled by authoritatively judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 'Neutrality of Arbitration Proceedings' cannot be allowed to be succumb or got highjacked by insistence of a large section of Govt. Departments and Corporations to continue to violate the impartiality, probity and unbiasedness of arbitration proceedings in the country.
14.The unilateral appointment of arbitrators is germane to this vice and when the first step is taken in a wrong direction and is rendered non est, every next step and the culmination of the arbitral journey into an award is nothing but a zilch or nullity.
(IV) Conclusion Conclusion: Award passed by Unilaterally Appointed Sole Arbitrator is nullity.
15. Unilateral Appointment of Sole Arbitrator is non est and void ab initio. Awards passed by such a Tribunal is 'Non-Executable". The statutory provision of Section 12(5) read with Schedule 7 of the Act duly explained by full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Judgment and other Supreme Court judgments namely Perkins Eastman, Bharat Broadband and several judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it is found that as per legal position as it exists as on date, the unilateral appointment of Sole Arbitrator was void ab initio, non-est and a nullity. The proceedings carried out by such unilaterally appointed arbitrator and the award passed found to have Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 11 of 14 been passed with inherent lack of jurisdiction. As such, this Court is of the firm view that the Sole Arbitrator Sh. Ved Prakash was unilaterally appointed by Intec Capital Ltd. was devoid of jurisdiction to try this suit. As such the impugned award passed by him while exercising the jurisdiction which never vested herein is nothing but a nullity and a void document and is accordingly set asided.
16.The above detailed discussion fairly brings to the fore one fact that 'Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrators' by the Intec Capital Ltd is nothing but a blatant violation and disregard of Law laid by Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and is akin to Contempt of Court. Such a conduct by Intec Capital Ltd through such Unilateral Appointments is nothing but a classic example of abuse of Constitutional duty to usurp citizens' Rights to seek justice under this ADR.
17.It is appalling to observe that the Intec Capital Ltd appeared to be determined to scorn and ignore with impunity the binding Law of the Land and still gather courage to approach the Courts of Law with their unclean hands to abuse the due process of law in reaping benefits of such ill-gotten Arbitral Award.
18.As guided by the afore-discussed binding judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Arbitral Award dated 05.07.2023, passed by Unilaterally Appointed Sole Arbitrator namely Sh. Ved Prakash is declared 'Non-Executable'.
Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 12 of 14
19.In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das 8, Hon'ble SC dealt with the issue and with intention to:
"Discourage speculative and vexatious litigation and judicial adventurism. "There is an increasing tendency on the part of the litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the fora seem readily to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed. Having regard to the frivolous nature of the complaint, we think it is a fit case for award of costs, more so, when the appellant has suffered heavily. Therefore, we award costs of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant."
20.In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma9, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.... Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings, or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice..... To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that 'Satyameva jayate' (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or 'Yato Dharmstato Jaya' (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with aforesaid mens rea.
21. In a similar Matter bearing No. OMP (Comm) 12/2022, titled "Richpal Singh Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital & Anr", this Court imposed cost of Rs. 3 lacs upon respondent GNCTD. The order of 8 (1994) 4 SCC, 225, 1994 Latest Caselaw 336 SC 9 (1995) 1 SCC 421, 1994 Latest Caselaw 573 SC Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 13 of 14 this Court was challenged by respondent in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing FAO (Comm) No. 150/2023 titled "GTB Hospital through its Medical Superintendent Vs. M/s Richpal Singh & Anr,", wherein Hon'ble High Court upheld the order passed by this Court qua imposition of cost.
22.In so far as plaintiff/objector has incurred huge expenditure, respondent Intec Capital Ltd. is burdened with Cost of Rs. 75,000/-, out of which cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to Shahdara Bar Association & Cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the paid to the petitioner/Objector.
23.Petitioner/Objector is declared to be entitled to benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act in case he so desires to reagitate his pending claims either under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or in a suit under Section 9 CPC as the case may be.
24.Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Petition stands allowed and Arbitral Award dated 05.07.2023 is set aside with Cost of Rs. 75,000/-, out of which cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to Shahdara Bar Association & Cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the paid to the petitioner/Objector.
25.Original Arbitration file be received back to the Arbitrator.
26.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge Commercial Court-03 Shahdara District, KKD Delhi/09.05.2024 Tarun Bassan Vs M/s Intec Capital Pvt. Ltd OMP (Comm.) No.04/2024 page 14 of 14