Allowed

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited v. Ehps Ever Holiday Planners Services through Its Proprietor Mr. Suraj Rai

Delhi HC18 Nov 2024ARB.P./1191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a sole arbitrator appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court found the arbitration clause valid, confirmed proper service of notices, and appointed Mr. Rubinder Ghumman as the arbitrator. The respondent's objections are reserved for the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rubinder Ghumman appointed as Sole Arbitrator; proceedings under DIAC rules; respondent allowed to file preliminary objections.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited Vs Ehps Ever… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18.11.2024

¶4

+ ARB.P. 1191/2024

¶5

M/S MONEYWISE FINANCIAL

¶6

SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mehvish Khan, Mr. Aman Choudhary, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

EHPS EVER HOLIDAY PLANNERS SERVICES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SURAJ RAI .....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶11

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )

¶12

The present petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the A&C Act’ ) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶13

The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of a Master Loan Agreement dated 21.02.2019 executed between the petitioner and the respondent, in terms of which the respondent is a borrower.

¶14

As per the said agreement, the petitioner disbursed a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the respondent. The loan amount was payable into 15 equal instalments of Rs.75,420/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only).

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1191/2024 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:2 4.11.2024 04:25:17

¶18

Dispute/s have arisen between the parties on account of alleged default on the part of the respondent in paying the requisite instalments. The respondent failed to make the payment despite being granted opportunities to clear the outstanding dues.

¶19

The arbitration clause in the Agreement between the parties, is in the following terms : -

¶20

“10.1 Arbitration: Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation, any question regarding it existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement, rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination (“Dispute”), shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Lender . The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall get out the reasons for the arbitrator’s decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party with, each party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration tribunal. Any award by the arbitration tribunal shall be final and binding.”

¶21

Disputes having arisen between the parties, a notice for invoking arbitration dated 24.06.2024 was issued by the petitioner. However, the respondents failed to respond to the same.

¶22

In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court, through the present petition, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

¶23

In the present proceedings, notice was issued by the Court on 06.08.2024. The petitioner has taken the requisite steps to serve the respondent at its known addresses. It has been brought out that the respondent has been served through courier, however, the communication/s

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1191/2024 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:2 4.11.2024 04:25:17

¶27

sent to the address/es via speed post were returned with the notations, “Item returned, no such person in the address”. The respondent is stated to have been also served via email at [email protected] and via whatsapp at +919839300029. The relevant tracking reports have been placed on record along with the affidavit of service dated 13.11.2024, filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶28

Section 3 of the A&C Act contemplates that a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee’s last known place of business or mailing address by any means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it. In the present case, the petitioner has made numerous attempts to effect service on the respondent and has thereby discharged its onus to effect service on the respondent.

¶29

In the circumstances, the present petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, despite no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 11. Since the existence of the arbitration clause is evident from a perusal of the Master Loan Agreement, there is no impediment in 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) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377, Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning , 2024 INSC 532 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666.

¶30

Accordingly, Mr. Rubinder Ghumman, Advocate (Mob.: +91

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

ARB.P. 1191/2024

¶34

Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:2 4.11.2024 04:25:17

¶35

9999454660) appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶36

The respondent shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the arbitrator, in accordance with law.

¶37

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.

¶38

Let the arbitration take place under the aegis of and under the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

¶39

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶40

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case. 18. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶42

NOVEMBER 18, 2024/ sl

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1191/2024 By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:2 4.11.2024 04:25:17

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited v. Ehps Ever Holiday Planners Services through Its Proprietor Mr. Suraj Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited v. Ehps Ever Holiday Planners Services through Its Proprietor Mr. Suraj Rai

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

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aggarwal Granites through Its Proprietor Mohan Lal Gupta and Ors.

Techno Global Services Private Limited Vs Gail India Limited

Techno Global Services Private Limted Vs Gail India Limited & Anr.

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Sagar Vilas Dhanawade and Anr.

Cars 24 Financial Services Private Limited Vs Gaurav Kumar Proprietor of M/S Gaurav Motors and Anr.

Naresh Nanubhai Desai Vs Emaar India Limited