Delhi High Court
M/S Cars 24 Financial Services Private ... vs Surbhi Chawla Proprietor Of M/S Surbhi ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
+ ARB.P. 1322/2024
M/S CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rit Arora and Mr. Anurag Arora,
Advs.
versus
SURBHI CHAWLA PROPRIETOR OF M/S SURBHI MOTORS
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'A&C Act') seeks
appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of a Credit
Facility Agreement dated 17.01.2020 entered into between the petitioner and
the respondents, in terms of which the respondent no.1 is the borrower,
whereas the respondent no.2 is the co-borrower.
3. Disputes have arisen between the parties on account of alleged
default on the part of the respondents in paying the tranches/instalments
under the aforesaid agreement.
4. The Agreement between the parties contains an Arbitration Clause as
under-
"15.2 Arbitration: Any dispute under this Agreement shall be settled by
binding arbitration conducted in English with the seat of arbitration in
New Delhi, before a single arbitrator appointed by Lender at its sole
discretion, as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
5. Disputes having arisen between the parties, a Finance/Credit Facility
Recall Notice-cum-Proposal for Appointment of Arbitrator dated 04.09.2023
was issued by the petitioner followed by a notice invoking arbitration dated
09.07.2024. However, the respondents failed to respond to the same.
6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court,
through the present petition, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute.
7. In the present proceedings, notice was issued by the Court on
29.08.2024. The petitioner has taken the requisite steps to serve the
respondents at its known address/es. It has been brought out that the
respondents have been duly served through speed post. The respondents are
stated to have been also served via email at survish0gmail.com and via
whatsapp at +917696720300. The relevant tracking reports and receipts
have been placed on record along with the affidavit of service dated
11.11.2024, filed on behalf of the petitioner.
8. In the circumstances, the present petition is taken up for hearing and
disposal, despite no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
9. Since the existence of the arbitration clause is evident from a perusal
of the Agreement, there is no impediment in appointing an independent sole
arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties as prayed for and
as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377, Bharat
Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 547, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024
INSC 532 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666.
10. Accordingly, Ms. Swati Surbhi, Advocate (Mob.: 9899999785) is
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties.
11. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosures as
required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.
12. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with
IVth Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between
the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
13. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator
on their merits, in accordance with law.
14. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of this court on the merits of the case.
15. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2024/sl
