Delhi District Court
Mahabir M vs Hdb Financial Services Limited on 15 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
OMP (Comm.) No. 21/2025
Mahabir M
S/o Shri Sudan
R/o G-26, Ground Floor,
MCD Flats, Gulabi Bagh, Shastri Nagar,
New Delhi-110007 .... PETITIONER
Versus
HDB Financial Services Limited
Through its concerned authorized officer
Having their registered office at:
Radhika, 2nd Floor,
Law Garden Road, Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad-380009
Also having branch office at:
2/12, 2nd Floor, Mall Road,
Near Keys Show Room, Tilak Nagar
New Delhi-110018 .... RESPONDENT
Date of filing of the Objections : 08.05.2025
Date of reserving Order : 26.09.2025
Date of Order : 15.10.2025
ORDER
1. This is a petition under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the exparte award dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.10.15
SISODIA 16:36:46 +0530
OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 1/18
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present objections are that the petitioner had obtained salaried personal loan from the respondent in 2019 for a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- which was duly sanctioned by the respondent. The petitioner executed loan agreement bearing no. 8929634 dated 28.09.2019. The petitioner defaulted in payment of EMIs and failed to regularize the account whereupon the respondent recalled the entire loan facility vide loan recall notice dated 18.01.2023 and demanded repayment of Rs. 3,10,606/-. When the petitioner failed to repay the said loan, the respondent issued a letter dated 27.08.2024 for change of venue of arbitration from Chennai to New Delhi. The respondent further sent a letter dated 04.09.2024 to the petitioner requesting to select one of the arbitrators from the list of three arbitrators. When the petitioner failed to select the arbitrator, respondent appointed Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal as Sole Arbitrator and referred the dispute to him vide letter dated 09.10.2024. The Arbitrator entered reference and vide letter dated 10.10.2024, made necessary disclosures as per the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Sixth Schedule. Thereafter, Arbitrator issued notice dated 17.10.2024 for arbitration proceeding to the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2024. On 04.11.2024, Ld. Arbitrator passed Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:37:02 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 2/18 interim order under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act directing the branch manager of Corporation Bank not to permit any letter withdrawal from Account No. 520101222309969 of the petitioner. The employer of the petitioner i.e. Delhi Jal Board was also directed to attach 1/3rd of petitioner's salary and not to release the salary till the dispute is resolved. On 18.11.2024, petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and after recording ex-parte evidence on 20.11.2024, Ld. Sole Arbitrator passed ex-parte award against the petitioner on 14.02.2025.
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is an illiterate person and the respondent despite having knowledge of current address of the petitioner did not mention the said address in the claim petition and notices were sent to the petitioner on the old address and the petitioner did not receive any notice issued by either the respondent or the sole arbitrator. It is further stated that petitioner came to know about the arbitration proceeding only on 02.02.2025 when he visited his bank to withdraw the cash and was informed about the interim order issued by the Sole Arbitrator. After several inquiries from the respondent, the bank officials provided printed copy of the interim order. Thereafter, petitioner sent formal letter to the sole arbitrator on 07.03.2025 requesting the complete record which were provided on 27.03.2025.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
SISODIA
KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15
16:37:14 +0530
OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 3/18
3. Aggrieved by the arbitral award dated 14.02.2025, petitioner has assailed the same on the following grounds:
i. Because Clause 22 of the Agreement, inter alia, states that the place of Arbitration shall be Chennai and the clause further read that the petitioner - respondent irrevocably waives any objection it may have now or in the future to the laying of the venue of such arbitration proceedings and any claim that any such proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum.
ii. Because the Arbitral proceedings were initiated and continued based on misrepresented and false facts as placed by the respondent-claimant before Ld. Arbitrator. The respondent -claimant failed to fully disclose the actual factual circumstances concerning the petitioner-respondents' residential status, education, and execution of the loan agreement. iii. Because the entire loan documentation, including the application form and agreement, was completed in English by an agent of the respondent -claimant despite the fact that the petitioner-respondent is not literate in English.
iv. Because the address recorded in the loan documents pertains to his previous residence, used only because the petitioner-respondent's identity cards still displayed the old address. He was assured by the Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:37:30 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 4/18 respondent's agent that the correct address at Gulabi Bagh would be updated in due course and that all communication would be directed accordingly. This assurance was never fulfilled and correspondence was sent to outdated address.
v. Because all the alleged notices were sent to an outdated address that had not been used for correspondence since the petitioner relocated. vi. Because no notice was served regarding the change of arbitration venue from Chennai to Delhi, Clause 22 (C) of the Loan Agreement stipulated Chennai as the agreed place of arbitration. The respondent unilaterally altered the venue to Delhi and claimed to have sent a notice. However, no such notice was received by petitioner.
vii. Because notice u/s 21 of the Act required to invoke arbitration formally was never served on the petitioner. The respondent failed to provide any tangible proof of service or acknowledgment by the petitioner.
viii. Because the correct and updated address of the petitioner was very much within the knowledge of respondent as the loan agreement in question was executed at G-26, Ground Floor, MCD Flats, Gulabi Bagh, Shashtri Nagar, New Delhi-110007. This was the address where the petitioner had shifted along Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:37:44 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 5/18 with his son and family before availing the loan. The petitioner was assured by the respondent that the correct address would be updated in due course and all future communication would be addressed accordingly to Gulabi Bagh.
ix. Because respondent deliberately and dishonestly continued to use the outdated address for issuing notices thereby attempting to mislead the Ld. Arbitrator and arbitral proceedings. x. Because there is no compelling material or credible evidence provided by the respondent or the Ld. Arbitrator to substantiate that any letter, as alleged in the petition, was ever duly served upon the petitioner. There is complete absence of any delivery of acknowledgment, tracking report, or postal receipt indicating successful delivery, as well as no affidavit of service confirming the mode, date, and manner in which such alleged communication was dispatched or received.
xi. Because the petitioner is not debarred from using his personal savings accounts for withdrawal. Respondent should show prima facie that their claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the court that the petitioner is about to remove or dispute of the whole or part of his property to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:38:01 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 6/18 him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, this Hon'ble Tribunal shall keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment.
4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent as well as the sole arbitrator.
5. Respondent was duly served with the notice. Reply to the objection petition has been filed by respondent. In reply to the objection petition, it is stated that objection petition is not maintainable either on the facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come before this court with clean hands. The present petition has been filed without any reasonable grounds or explanation. The present petition has been filed with some oblique motives in an endeavour to force the respondent company to accept its illegal demands and to coerce the respondent company. The objection petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is trying to take advantage of its wrong. The petitioner on one hand has not paid the outstanding amount of the respondent company and on the other hand, the petitioner broke his commitment and defaulted in the repayment of EMI of loan taken by him from respondent. It is stated that when respondent and their official tried to contact, he never shown any interest in fulfilling his commitment of repayment of loan then when respondent Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:38:19 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 7/18 withdraw the said loan facility by sending loan recall notice dated 18.01.2023 the petitioner willfully avoided to comply the same. When respondent took the matter for adjudication before Ld. Arbitrator, the petitioner always avoided the proceedings of the Arbitrator. Finally, award dated 14.02.2025 was passed against the petitioner but he again ignored to comply the same.
On merits, the contents of objection petition have been denied. It is denied that ex-parte award came to the petitioner's attention only after receiving the complete arbitral record on 27.03.2025. It is denied that petitioner first became aware of the arbitral proceedings on 02.02.2025 during a visit to his bank where he discovered that his salary account has been arbitrarily frozen due to an interim order allegedly issued under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is denied that arbitral proceedings stand vitiated for lack of due process. It is stated that petitioner never approached the respondent or the Ld. Arbitrator and never made any written representation. It is denied that unilateral appointment of Sole Arbitrator by respondent bank is without mutual consent or adherence to the settled law established by Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the same contradicts the letter and spirit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is stated that Ld. Arbitrator was appointed after serving the letter of option dated 04.09.2024.
It is denied that ex-parte impugned award is based on a gross misrepresentation of facts and a material concealment by the respondent. It is denied that proceedings leading to the ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.10.15 SISODIA 16:38:36 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 8/18 impugned award suffer from multiple legal and procedural infirmities including but is not limited to failure to provide notice of lack of opportunity to be heard and a one-sided arbitral process tainted by bias.
A prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent on the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: -
i. M/s Satya Prakash and Brothers (P) Limited Vs. Union of India, 2025: DHC:6615-DB.
ii. Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Sons Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2025: DHC:4781-DB.
iii. Lion Engineering Consultants Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors, (2018) 16 SCC 758 iv. Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2019) 17 SCC 82 v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another Vs. SAL Udyog Private Limited, (2022) 2 SCC 275 vi. Bhandari Udyog Limited Vs. Industrial Facilitation Council and Another, (2015) 14 SCC 515 vii.Kings Chariot through its Sole Proprietor Mrs. Neelima Suri Vs Tarun Wadhwa, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4039 ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.10.15 SISODIA 16:38:53 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 9/18 viii. M/s HDB Financial Services Limited Vs Sandeep Kumar, Ex. COMM 62/2023, DOD09.02.2024 passed by Ms. Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj, Ld. DJ (Commercial Court)-02, South, Saket, Delhi.
ix. Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs United Telecoms Ltd. (2019) 5 SCC 755 x. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Vs Shivaa Trading, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2937.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in which respondent had invoked arbitration, was never served upon the petitioner. It was further argued that the respondent unilaterally appointed the sole arbitrator which raises doubts about the impartiality about the independence of the arbitrator. Ld. Sole Arbitrator in his disclosure dated 10.10.2024 failed to mention the fact that he had acted as an arbitrator in the case of the respondent company earlier also. It was argued that the arbitral award passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator is a nullity, non-est and is liable to set aside. It was also argued that there was no express waiver given by the petitioner for appointment of the arbitrator and objection can be raised regarding the ineligibility of the arbitrator under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The respondent has failed to place on record any proof of delivery of the service upon the petitioner. The record of the arbitrator also does not contain any Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:39:12 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 10/18 document to show that the petitioner was duly served with the notices issued by the arbitrator.
8. Per Contra, Counsel for the respondent has argued that the objections filed by the petitioner are devoid of any merit and petitioner could only challenge the appointment of arbitrator within 15 days from the date of awareness about the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstance referred in Section 12 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
It was also argued that the petitioner is taking advantage of its own wrong as the petitioner always avoided the proceedings before the arbitrator. The petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the letter dated 27.08.2024 sent by the respondent regarding change of venue nor filed any objection to the letter dated 04.09.2024 when the petitioner was asked to choose an arbitrator from the list of three arbitrators. The petitioner also failed to appear before the Ld. Arbitrator and ignored the notice issued by Ld. Arbitrator dated 17.10.2024. It was argued that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was argued that the process adopted by the respondent company in appointment of the arbitrator and conducting the arbitration proceeding is totally correct as the respondent has appointed specialized arbitrator from the specialized pool of arbitrators in view of the Fifth Schedule of Section 12(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:39:28 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 11/18 Act. Reliance was also placed on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts as detailed in the reply to the objection petition: -
i. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs NHPC Ltd. & Anr, 2020:INSC:272 : (2020) 4 SCC 310 ii. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs British Marine PLC, 2016:DHC:7083.
iii. G. Vijayaraghavan Vs M.D. Central Warehousing Corpn. & Ors. 86(2000)DLT844, 2000(54)DRJ895. iv. HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) vs. Gail (India) Ltd. MANU/SC/1066/2017, 2017:INSC:838, (2018) 12 SCC 471. v. HPS Ahluwalia Vs Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
2018:DHC:464 vi. Hero Fincorp Limited Vs Techno (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
2022/DHC/004931 vii. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, 2024 INSC 857.
9. Since Ld. Counsel for respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of this court to try and entertain the objection petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, I deem it appropriate to first deal with the issue of jurisdiction before dealing with other issues raised by the counsels for the parties.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:39:48 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 12/18
10. A bare perusal of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would show that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that petitioner had obtained salaried personal loan from the respondent vide agreement bearing no. 8929634 dated 28.09.2019 which was signed by the petitioner in Karol Bagh office of the respondent at Delhi.
11. Once the petitioner has accepted that he had signed the loan agreement, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The objections now taken by the petitioner in the objection petition that he was not aware of the contents of the loan agreement as he is not literate in English and he was not read over and explained the terms and conditions in vernacular is highly belated as no such objections were raised by the petitioner at any point of time after signing of the agreement or thereafter nor any document / letter has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that any such objection was raised by him earlier.
12. Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act deals with the place of arbitration. A plain reading of Section 20 leaves no room for doubt that where the place of arbitration is in India, the parties are free to agree to any "place" or "seat" within India, be it Delhi, Mumbai, etc. In the absence of the parties' agreement thereto, Section 20(2) authorizes the tribunal to determine the place/seat of such arbitration. Section 20(3) enables the tribunal Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:40:06 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 13/18 to meet at any place for conducting hearings at a place of convenience in matters such as consultations among its members for hearing witnesses, experts, or the parties.
13. In the present case, perusal of the Loan Agreement dated 28.09.2019 would show that as per Clause 22 the parties have agreed that the place of arbitration shall be at Chennai. However, the said clause further provides that the borrower irrevocably waives any objection it may have now or in the future to the laying of the venue of such arbitration proceedings and any such proceedings as have been brought in an inconvenient forum.
14. Keeping in view of the aforesaid provision, the respondent changed the venue of arbitration proceeding from Chennai to Delhi vide letter dated 27.08.2024. Although, the petitioner has disputed the receipt of such letter but the change of the forum cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner as Delhi was a more convenient forum for the petitioner who is admittedly residing and working for gain in Delhi. Merely because arbitration proceedings were conducted by sole arbitrator at Rohini, it cannot be said that this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present objections.
15. The main argument advanced by the counsel for petitioner for challenging the award is that the award has been passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator and is therefore, nullity in the Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:40:19 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 14/18 eyes of law. It was also argued that Ld. Arbitrator has given false declaration under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and has failed to disclose that he has been appointed as an arbitrator within the past three years on two or more occasions by one of the parties and was therefore, ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. Counsel for the respondent has refuted this argument and has submitted that the arbitrator has been appointed in accordance of the provision of the Fifth Schedule under Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
16. A bare perusal of the letter dated 10.10.2024 issued by the arbitrator giving disclosure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would show that at serial no. 7 of the Table, the arbitrator has failed to disclose that he had been appointed as arbitrator by the respondent company on two or more occasions within the past three years. This declaration is apparently false as the petitioner has placed on record copy of the order dated 09.02.2024 in Execution (Comm) 62/2023 titled as M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd. Vs Sandeep Kumar passed by the court of Ms. Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj, DJ (Commercial Court)-02, South, Saket, Delhi, perusal of it shows that the court had set aside award dated 24.02.2022 passed by Sole Arbitrator Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal on the ground that the sole arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by DH and the award was passed ex-parte.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15
16:40:33 +0530
OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 15/18
17. Perusal of the record also shows that the Ld. Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the respondent vide its letter dated 09.10.2024 without obtaining any written consent of the petitioner. The argument advanced by counsel for respondent that petitioner was given option to choose from the list of three arbitrators mentioned in the letter dated 04.09.2024 but the petitioner failed to choose any arbitrator and therefore, the respondent had appointed the arbitrator is without any merit. Firstly, the respondent has not placed on record any document to show that the letter dated 09.10.2024 giving the option to the petitioner to choose from the list of three arbitrators was duly served upon him. Even assuming, though without admitting that the petitioner deliberately had not chosen to respond to the letter of the respondent proposing the name of the arbitrator, DH was expected to have approach the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of the arbitrator instead of going ahead and filing the claim before the arbitrator proposed and appointed by it of its own.
18. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapati (Neutral citation no.:2023: DHC:3705-DB) Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after discussing the judgments of TRF Ltd.Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377, Perkins Eastman Architect DPC and Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2020) 20 SCC 760. and Proddatur Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:40:47 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 16/18 Cable TV Digi Services Vs. Siti Cable Network Ltd. (2020) 267 DLT 51 held that the award rendered by an arbitrator, who was unilaterally appointed is a nullity and the same cannot be enforced. It was further held that such an arbitrator was ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator in terms of section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Hon'ble Division Bench also held that a party can waive its right to object to the ineligibility of an arbitrator under section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act but the same is subject to two conditions. First, that the waiver is required to be done by an express agreement in writing; and second, that such an agreement is entered into after the disputes have arisen. Unless both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, there can be no waiver of ineligibility of an arbitrator.
19. The aforesaid judgment has further been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.47322/2023 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapat vide their judgment dated 12.12.2023.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Broad Bank Network Ltd. Vs. United Telecom Ltd (2019) 5 SCC 755 had authoritatively held that waiver of a right to object to ineligibility of an arbitrator under section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be inferred by conduct of a party.
21. In the present case, there is no written agreement Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:41:05 +0530 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 17/18 containing express waiver of the right to object to the ineligibility of the arbitrator under Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on record after the disputes had arisen between the parties and such waiver cannot be inferred by the conduct of the party.
22. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the award dated 14.02.2025 passed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Sole Arbitrator is a nullity as he was unilaterally appointed by respondent company. Accordingly, the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the petitioner is allowed and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.10.15 16:41:19 +0530 (Anil Kumar Sisodia) District Judge (Commercial Courts)-04, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court on 15th October, 2025 OMP(COMM)21/2025 Mahabir M Vs HDB Financial Services Limited Page No. 18/18