Delhi High Court
Sunil Bansilal Raisoni & Anr. vs Bajaj Finserv/Bajaj Finance ... on 7 February, 2022
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 14/2022
SUNIL BANSILAL RAISONI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Jaikriti S. Jadega, Adv.
versus
BAJAJ FINSERV/BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Paras Parekh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties in furtherance of the
loan agreement dated 06.07.2015.
2. Petitioners are Directors of the company- M/s Raisoni Ventures Pvt.
Ltd. and carrying various businesses and other related activities. Petitioners
no.1 is the borrower of the Finance Company known as 'Bajaj FinServ' and
petitioner no.2 is an additional security provider to the loan sanctioned by
respondent no.1.
3. According to the petitioners, respondent no.1 is the Bajaj FinServ
Finance Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and is
engaged in the business of money lending. Respondent no.2 is the managing
director of respondent no.1 and looking after day to day affairs of the
company.
4. Pertinently, petitioners are inter alia involved in various businesses
like residential and commercial construction and government contracting.
Petitioner no.1 had intended and availed a loan of Rs.15 crores against the
security worth Rs.30 crores by executing Loan Agreement dated 06.07.2015
with respondent no.1 wherein petitioner no.1 had pledged 27.60 lac shares
of Ashoka Buildcon.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that respondents suddenly sold the pledged 13,50,000 shares
of petitioners no.1 and 6,26,849 shares of petitioner no.2 in March 2020 in
the "offline" mode at an average rate of Rs.54 per share which was less than
50% of its average trading rate for the past 12 months and well below or less
than 30% of its higher rate of Rs.180 per share in the period between
November 2017 to June 2018, though the average rate of Ashoka Buildcon
for the past 12 months has been in the range of Rs.110 to Rs.120. He has
further submitted that as per Article III Clause 3.1 of the Loan Agreement,
respondent no.1 was illegally and deliberately selling number of shares of
petitioners which has caused a huge loss to petitioner no.1 not just in terms
of monetary loss but also in terms of the reputation and CIBIL rating.
Therefore, petitioners no.1 sent a legal notice to respondent no.2 on
13.06.2020 requesting to repatriate all the shares of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. to
petitioners, however, the same claim was denied by respondents vide its
reply dated 22.06.2020.
6. Thereafter, petitioners sent notice dated 08.07.2020 under clause 8 of
the agreement dated 06.07.2015 invoking arbitration and proposed name of
Shri S.N. Pathak, learned District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) as an arbitrator,
however, respondents did not respond to the same. Hence, the present
petition has been filed.
7. On the other side, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
has not opposed the present petition and 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.
8. Since counsels 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.
9. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Vijender Jain (Mobile:
7982667359) is appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties.
10. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
12. The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 07, 2022/ab
