$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 01.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 1232/2021
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Jordan, Advocate
Versus
M/S FOCUS IMAGING RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Priyank Kher, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of
Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner-Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. claims to be engaged
in the business of financing as a NBFC, interalia, Business Loans Against
Properties, Personal Loans, Vehicle Loans etc. According to petitioner,
respondents as Borrower &Co-borrowers respectively applied and availed
financial assistance as a Business Loan from petitioner and based on the
representations and documents presented by respondents, petitioner
ARB.P. 1232/2021 Page 1 of 4 approved, sanctioned and disbursed a business loan amounting to
Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) vide Loan Loan Cum-Guarantee
TCFBL0386000010050327 dated 12.04.2018. The said loan was repayble
with interest @ 13% p.a. in 36 monthly instalments whereunder first
instalment got due on 09.05.2018, starting from 2.04.2018 till 09.04.202l.
According to petitioner, till 19.09.2019, respondent made the part payments,
however, thereafter they turned highly irregular and defaulted in repayment
as per the schedule.
3. During the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that
despite repeated reminders and Loan Recall Notice dated 14.02.2020
amounting to Rs.38,16,216/- from the petitioner, respondents have
committed the breach of terms of loan agreement dated 12.04.2018 and
therefore, in terms of Clause-19 thereof, the disputes are liable to be settled
through arbitration.
4. Pertinently, petitioner in the present case had invoked arbitration and
appointed sole Arbitrator, however, the learned Arbitrator recused himself
from said proceedings. Thereafter, petitioner approached High Court of
Madras and preferred a petition being O.P. No. 144 of 2021 under Section
11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole
ARB.P. 1232/2021 Page 2 of 4 Arbitrator as provided under Clause -19 of the Loan Agreement dated
12.04.2018. Vide order dated 14.07.2021 the said petition was dismissed as
not maintainable being without jurisdiction, while giving liberty to the
parties to approach this Court. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. Today, Mr. Tomar, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf
of respondent and he submits that the claims raised in the present petition
are disputed, however, fairly conceded that the disputes inter se parties are
arbitrable. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent has no objection
if disputes are referred to an independent arbitrator appointed by this Court.
6. Since counsel representing both the sides have consented that the
disputes are arbitrable and an independent Arbitrator be appointed by this
Court, the present petition is allowed.
7. Accordingly, Mr. D.S. Pawaria, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile:
9999621110) is appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties.
8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
ARB.P. 1232/2021 Page 3 of 4
10. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly
disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 01, 2022 r
ARB.P. 1232/2021 Page 4 of 4
