Delhi High Court
Cars 24 Financial Services Private ... vs Dharmender Singh & Anr. on 21 October, 2024
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
+ ARB.P. 1124/2024
CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Arora, Adv. (through v/c)
versus
DHARMENDER SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
respondents seeking that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the
disputes between the parties. The disputes between the parties have arisen in
the context of Credit Facility Agreement dated 25.01.2021 entered into
between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of which the respondent
no.1 was the borrower whereas the respondent no.2 was the co-borrower.
2. Disputes having been arisen between the parties, "Finance/Credit
Facility Recall Notice-cum-Proposal for appointment of Arbitrator" dated
05.02.2024 was sent by the petitioner to the respondents.
3. Vide the said communication, the petitioner, referring to the failure on
the part of the respondents in making the requisite payment in terms of the
Credit Facility Agreement, proposed constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal
comprising of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties. However, no response to the aforesaid notice was sent by the
respondents
4. Notice in the present petition was issued on 29.07.2024.
5. An affidavit of service has been filed wherein it has been brought out
that the respondents have been duly served by post and also through
WhatsApp and email. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Since the existence of arbitration clause is evident from a perusal of
the Credit Facility Agreement, there is no impediment to appointing an
independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the
parties, as prayed for, as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (INDIA) Limited,
(2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited,
(2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United
Telecoms Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 755.
7. Accordingly, Mr. Himanshu Goel, Advocate (Mob. No.:
+919810215487), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes between the parties.
8. The respondents shall be entitled to raise preliminary objections as
regards jurisdiction/arbitrability, which shall be decided by the learned
arbitrator, in accordance with law.
9. 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.
10. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with
Fourth Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between
the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
11. 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.
12. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of this court on the merits of the case.
13. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 21, 2024/sv
