Allowed

Axis Finance Limited v. Vicky Selvaraj Swami

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024ARB.P./1032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The learned Single Judge allowed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the three-year limitation and existence of arbitration agreement were satisfied. The Court appointed an arbitrator and rejected contentions regarding criminal proceedings and fraud as irrelevant to this jurisdictional exercise.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Ms. Malika Sharma as Sole Arbitrator; dismissed objections regarding criminal proceedings and fraud as irrelevant to Section 11(6) jurisdiction.

Axis Finance Limited Vs Vicky Selvaraj Swami — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~13 to 15 & 19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1031/2024

¶4

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

RITESH RAMKRUSHNA SHENDE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arpit Tripathi Mr. S.Sharma, Mr. Rekhans Rana and Mr. Rajat Pratap Singh, and Ms. Aparna Pandey

¶7

ARB.P. 1032/2024 AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Adv.

¶8

versus

¶9

VICKY SELVARAJ SWAMI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arpit Tripathi Mr. S.Sharma, Mr. Rekhans Rana and Mr. Rajat Pratap Singh, and Ms. Aparna Pandey

¶10

ARB.P. 1033/2024

¶11

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Adv.

¶12

versus

¶13

DATTA HANUMANT DEVKATE ....Respondent Through: Mr. Arpit Tripathi Mr. S.Sharma, Mr. Rekhans Rana and Mr. Rajat Pratap Singh, and Ms. Aparna Pandey

¶14

ARB.P. 1040/2024

¶15

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶16

Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 14:04:40

¶17

Signature Not VerifiedARB.P. 1031/2024, ARB.P. 1032/2024, ARB.P. 1033/2024 & ARB.P. 1040/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:06:24

¶18

Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Adv.

¶19

versus

¶20

ABHIJIT DATTATRAYA DHVALE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arpit Tripathi Mr. S.Sharma, Mr. Rekhans Rana and Mr. Rajat Pratap Singh, and Ms. Aparna Pandey

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 22.08.2024

¶24

1. These are petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996¹ for reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

¶25

2. Clause 14 of the Loan Agreement between the parties reads

¶26

thus:

¶27

“14. All disputes, differences and/or claim or questions arising out of these presents or in any way touching or concerning the same or as to constructions, meaning or effect thereof or as to the right, obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall be referred to and settled by arbitration, to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof, of a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the Lender, and in the event of death. Unwillingness, refusal, neglect, inability or incapability of a person so appointed to act as an arbitrator, the lender may appoint a new arbitrator to be a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator shall not be required to give any reasons for the award and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be held Mumbai/Delhi.”

¶28

3. There are only two objections which learned Counsel for the

¶29

1 “the 1996 Act” hereinafter

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

Signature Not VerifiedARB.P. 1031/2024, ARB.P. 1032/2024, ARB.P. 1033/2024 & ARB.P. 1040/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:06:24

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 14:04:40

¶33

respondent has raised. The first is that the loans which form subject matter of disputes in these petitions are also subject matter of criminal proceedings. The second is that the signatures on the loan documents are fraudulent, in respect of which the charge-sheet has been filed by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

¶34

4. Mr. Thukral, learned Counsel for the petitioner, refutes these contentions and submits that in fact there is no fraud in so far as availing of loans by the respondent from the petitioner is concerned, but that the respondent had invested the loans with certain other persons who may have defrauded them.

¶35

5. Mr. Arpit Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that, even if this were so, the bank is also to blame as it did not conduct any KYC. However, he submits that the loan amounts were in excess of the paying capacity of the respondent and no proper verification was done before the loans were sanctioned.

¶36

6. These aspects are of no relevance whatsoever in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is concerned.

¶37

7. The Supreme Court has, in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v Krish Spinning² , clearly stated that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) is only to satisfy itself that an arbitration agreement is in existence between the parties and that the Section

¶38

2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

Signature Not VerifiedARB.P. 1031/2024, ARB.P. 1032/2024, ARB.P. 1033/2024 & ARB.P. 1040/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:06:24

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 14:04:40

¶42

11(6) petition has been filed within three years of the issuance of the Section 21 notice by the petitioner to the respondent.

¶43

8. As both conditions stand satisfied, and the parties have not been able to arrive at a consensus regarding the dispute, the Court has to step in.

¶44

9. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms. Malika Sharma, Advocate (Tel. 9873162111) as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

¶45

10. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees as per the Fourth schedule of the 1996 Act.

¶46

11. The learned arbitrator is also requested to file requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on the reference.

¶47

12. The Court has not expressed any opinion on any aspect of the matter, whether on maintainability or merits. All questions of facts and law are left open to be agitated in the arbitral proceedings.

¶48

13. These petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶49

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶50

AUGUST 22, 2024 / dsn

¶51

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶52

Page 4 of 4

¶53

Signature Not VerifiedARB.P. 1031/2024, ARB.P. 1032/2024, ARB.P. 1033/2024 & ARB.P. 1040/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.08.2024 14:06:24

¶54

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 28.0 8.2024 14:04:40

Axis Finance Limited v. Vicky Selvaraj Swami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Finance Limited v. Vicky Selvaraj Swami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saket Shukla & Anr. Vs Santanu Roy & Anr.

M/S Gpr Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Sophisticated Industrial Materials Analytic Labs (P) Ltd. (Sima Labs Pvt. Ltd.) Vs M/S Dhal Engineering Company

Goel Construction Company Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Bk Arora HUF through Its Karta Sh Bhupender Kumar Arora Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh. Amit Gupta Vs Sh. Deepak Gupta & Ors.