Delhi High Court - Orders
Axis Bank Ltd vs Uv Assets Reconstruction Co on 23 March, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 89/2023
AXIS BANK LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arjun Garg, Advocate
versus
UV ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Dhruv Dewan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 23.03.2023 I.A. No. 3725/2023 (for exemption) Subject to the petitioner filing the clear, original and legible/typed copies of any dim documents on which the petitioner may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
The application is disposed of.
O.M.P.(COMM) 89/2023 and I.A. No. 3724/2023 (for stay)
1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Set aside the impugned Arbitral Award dated 19.12.2022 in the matter if arbitration between UV Asset Reconstruction Co. vs. Axis Bank Ltd.
b) Any other relief.
c) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.03.2023 17:26:24
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been preferred challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 19th December, 2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator whereby the learned Sole Arbitrator has awarded the respondent/claimant with recovery of Rs. 3,89,05,457 /- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization, pursuant to the Assignment Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") and ECGC claim settlement between the parties.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that at the outset it is submitted that the impugned award is ex-facie illegal, irrational and perverse and opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to consider the crucial clauses of the Assignment Agreement in relation to Cut off date and Due Diligence and the fact that in view of such clauses the respondent cannot be entitled to the proceeds received from ECGC. It thus submitted that evidently, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Arbitrator is vitiated by non-consideration of the facts and is covered Section 34 (b) (ii), Explanation I- (iii) as also U/s Section 34 (2) (A) since the impugned award is in conflict with the public policy, basic notions of justice and is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5. Issue notice of the petition and the accompanying application to the respondent.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent accepts notice and prayed for four weeks‟ time to file reply/objections. Let the same be filed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.03.2023 17:26:24 within a period of four weeks. The rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
7. List for final hearing on 12th May, 2023.
8. Parties are directed to file their written submissions as well as the convenience compilations before the next date of hearing.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MARCH 23, 2023 SV/AS Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:24.03.2023 17:26:24