Disposed¶20

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

Bombay HC7 Nov 2025CARAP/567/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment and substitution of arbitrator; COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.567 OF 2025; Tata Capital Limited versus K K Birla and Co; Non-Banking Finance Company term loan default; loan recall notice; invocation notice dated 12/07/2023; communication dated 8/09/2025 proposing substitution; substituted Arbitrator Ms. Sneha Phene; order dated 16/09/2025; respondents failed to appear despite service; Bombay High Court Commercial Division; Bharati Dangre J.; decided 20 November 2025; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Section 11 application disposed of by substituting the Arbitrator and appointing Ms. Sneha Phene on the same terms as the earlier Arbitrator, with the arbitration proceedings to be considered afresh. ¶20

Tata Capital Limited vs K K Birla and Co. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Section 11 application disposed of by substituting the Arbitrator and appointing Ms. Sneha Phene on the same terms as the earlier Arbitrator, with the arbitration proceedings to be considered afresh.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed/substituted under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of disputes arising between the parties out of and/or in connection with the Agreement of Term Loan dated 9/11/2020 and the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29/10/2021.

¶8

Court's answer

The Court deemed it appropriate to substitute the Arbitrator by appointing Ms. Sneha Phene, who shall be subject to the same terms of appointment as stipulated in the order appointing the earlier Arbitrator.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

With the appointment of the new Arbitrator, the arbitration proceedings shall be considered afresh.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), per Bharati Dangre, J., disposed of a Section 11 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Tata Capital Limited, a Non-Banking Finance Company, against K K Birla and Co, seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for disputes arising out of the Agreement of Term Loan dated 9/11/2020 read with the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29/10/2021. The respondents, despite service, did not appear and failed to respond to the loan recall notice and the invocation of arbitration. Noting that in four similar commercial arbitration applications the appointed Arbitrator had been substituted by order dated 16/09/2025 by Ms. Sneha Phene, Advocate, and that a communication dated 8/09/2025 proposing substitution (with reference to the invocation notice dated 12/07/2023) had gone unanswered, the Court substituted the Arbitrator in this matter as well, appointing Ms. Sneha Phene subject to the same terms of appointment as the earlier Arbitrator, and directed that the arbitration proceedings be considered afresh.

¶1

1/3 913 CARAP-567-2025 .doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶3

COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.567 OF 2025

¶4

Tata Capital Limited .. Applicant Versus K K Birla and Co .. Respondent

¶5

Ms. Resham Vasant Savla i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co for the Applicant.

¶6

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 20^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

The application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by Tata Capital Ltd a Non-Banking Finance Company, seeks appointment of an Arbitrator constituting the Arbitral Tribunal, to conduct and conclude the adjudication of disputes arising between the parties out of and/or in connection with the Agreement of Term Loan dated 9/11/2020, along with the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29/10/2021.

¶9

Since, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service being effected from time to time and the obvious reason being that they have availed the term loan from the applicant and when there was a default, a notice of loan recall

¶10

Ashish

¶11

2/3 913 CARAP-567-2025 .doc

¶12

was issued and even arbitration was invoked, but the respondents failed to respond to either of them.

¶13

It is in these circumstances, by specifically pointing out to us that in four commercial arbitration applications filed by Tata Capital Ltd involving the Agreement of Term Loan with different entities having availed the facilities, were allowed by making it for Arbitration, the counsel for petitioner seek similar relief.

¶14

A Receipt of communication dated 8/09/2025 is also placed before me by the learned counsel for the applicant, when a communication was addressed to the respondents with reference to the loan recall with invocation notice dated 12/07/2023, proposing substitution of the arbitrator and clearly indicating that if nothing is indicated on or before 8/09/2025, it shall be considered that they have no objection for substituting the Arbitrator as the Arbitrator earlier appointed for the reasons stated in this communication addressed to the claimant had sought substitution.

¶15

Since the Arbitrator appointed in the four commercial arbitration applications came to be substituted by an order dated 16/09/2025 and Ms. Sneha Phene, Advocate from this Court was appointed as a substituted Arbitrator, with the directions to the parties to approach the Arbitrator for further instructions and the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant, is even this dispute is made over to Ms. Sneha Phene.

¶16

Ashish

¶17

3/3 913 CARAP-567-2025 .doc

¶18

In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to substitute the Arbitrator by appointment of Ms. Sneha Phene, who shall be subject to the same terms of appointment, as stipulated in the order appointing the earlier Arbitrator.

¶19

Needless to state, the arbitration proceedings shall be considered afresh with the appointment of new Arbitrator.

¶20

With the above directions, the Section 11 application of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stands disposed of.

¶21

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶22

Ashish

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. K K Birla and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neha Devkumar Ramani vs Hema Devkumar Ramani and 6 Ors.

Liyakat Ali S/O Kasam Abdullah Mistry vs Firoz S/O Ayub Kasam Mistry

Vasudev Garg vs Embassy Office Parks Management Services Private Limited Manager, Embassy Reit

Sahakar Ventures vs Rohan Virani

Sahakar Ventures vs Rohan Virani

Shri. Pradeep Thakersey Vs R. S. Dwivedi