Delhi High Court
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited vs Nikhil Jain on 16 October, 2024
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 16.10.2024
+ ARB.P. 1165/2024
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Namita Singh, Advocate (through
VC)
versus
NIKHIL JAIN .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') seeking
appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen
between the parties.
2. The dispute between the parties have arisen in context of a loan
agreement dated 27.05.2023 under which the respondent borrowed a sum of
Rs. 11,84,000/- (rupees eleven lakhs eighty four thousand only) from the
petitioner for purchasing a vehicle. The said agreement contains an
arbitration clause as under:-
"Arbitration:
All disputes, differences and /or claim arising out of these presents or
in any way touching or concerning the same or as to constructions,
meaning or effect hereof or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties
hereunder shall be settled by arbitration to be held in accordance with
the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any
statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the arbitration of
a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the LENDER. In the event of
death, refusal, neglect, inability or incapability of a person so
appointed to act as an arbitrator, the LENDER may appoint a new
arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all
parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in
English language and held at the place more particularly mentioned in
the SCHEDULE-I of the present agreement hereunder."
3. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated
27.05.2024. However, the same was not replied to by the respondent. None
has appeared for the respondent, despite service.
4. The existence of the arbitration agreement is evident from a perusal of
the agreement. In terms of the judgment 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 and Bharat
Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent
Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
5. Accordingly, Ms. Vasundhara Bakhru, Advocate (Mob. No.
+919873033384) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes between the parties.
6. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosure as
required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.
7. It is agreed between the parties that the arbitration shall take place
under the aegis of and under the rules of Delhi International Arbitration
Centre (DIAC). It is directed accordingly.
8. It is clarified that the respondent shall be entitled to raise appropriate
jurisdictional objections, if any, as regards the arbitrability/ maintainability
of the claims sought to be raised, which shall be considered by the learned
sole arbitrator on its own merits.
9. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of
this Court on the merits of the matter.
10. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2024/dn
