Full Text
ARB.P. 1980/2024
Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S CARS 24 FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Arora, Adv.
MOTORS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. An affidavit of service dated 11.03.2025 has been filed, which reads as under:
KUMAR KAURAV
2. The office report also indicates that the service through mail was effected on the respondent no. 1, even the track report placed on record by the petitioner would indicate that the service through speed-post was also effected on the respondents.
3. Despite the aforesaid, no one appears for the respondents. The service deems to have been completed.
4. The petitioner is a non-banking financial company and is registered as a private limited. The petitioner appears to have extended the credit facility to respondent and accordingly, an agreement i.e. Credit Facility Agreement dated 22.12.2020 was executed.
1. There seems to be some default in the payment of the said amount and accordingly, the petitioner sent the legal notice dated 06.09.2024 invoking the arbitration clause.
5. Arbitration clause 15.[2] reads as under: “15.[2] Arbitration: Any dispute under this Agreement shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted in English with the seal of arbitration in New Delhi before a single arbitrator appointed by Lender at its sole discretion as per the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996.”
2. It is thus seen that the dispute is amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It is evident that where there exists an arbitration clause and in the event any dispute has arisen between the parties, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.,[1] TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.,[2]
Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited.,[3] and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 4.
3. Taking into consideration the exposition of law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases it can be safely concluded that in cases where the parties have agreed for resolving their disputes by way of the arbitration, the Court need not to conduct detailed enquiry and by leaving the rights of the parties to be agitated before the Arbitrator, an Arbitrator can be appointed.
6. In view of aforesaid, the Court appoints Ms. Milind Jain, Advocate (Mob No.+91-9999700647, Email id-milindjain87@yahoo.co.in) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
7. The Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties, requisite disclosures as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “A&C Act”).
8. The Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with the IVth Schedule of the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
9. The parties shall share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral cost, equally.
10. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
11. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved. Let the copy of the said order be sent to the newly appointed Arbitrator through the electronic mode as well.
12. All the rights and contentions of the parties stands reserved.
13. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
14. All the rights and contentions of the parties stand reserved.
15. The petition stands disposed of.