Dismissed

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Omega Manpower Solution through Its Proprietor and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2024ARB.P./1311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was pending. Due to lack of respondent appearance and service issues, court directed notice again. Finding service discharged, court appointed Ms. Neeru Vaid as sole arbitrator and directed proceedings under DIAC rules.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Ms. Neeru Vaid as sole arbitrator; proceedings to be conducted under Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Omega Manpower Solution… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 02.12.2024

¶4

- ARB.P. 1311/2024

¶5

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mehvish Khan, Mr. Aman Choudhary and Ms. Arunima Sinh Jadaun, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

OMEGA MANPOWER SOLUTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶10

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral )

¶11

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.

¶12

The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of a Master Loan Agreement dated 17.11.2018 executed between the petitioner and the respondents, in terms of which the respondent no.1 is a borrower, whereas the proprietor of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 are coborrowers.

¶13

As per the said agreement, the petitioner disbursed a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondents. The loan amount was payable into 36 equal instalments of Rs. 54,984/- (Fifty-Four

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

ARB.P. 1311/2024 Page 1 of 4

¶16

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:0 4.12.2024 23:19:15

¶17

Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Four only).

¶18

Dispute/s have arisen between the parties on account of alleged default on the part of the respondents in paying the requisite instalments. The respondents 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 loan recall/termination notice dated 27.12.2021 was issued by the petitioner followed by a notice invoking arbitration on 23.05.2024. 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

The present proceedings, notice was issued by the Court on

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

ARB.P. 1311/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶26

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:0 4.12.2024 23:19:15

¶27

27.08.2024. However, since none appeared on behalf of the respondents, a fresh notice was issued by the Court on 26.11.2024. The petitioner has taken the requisite steps to serve the respondents at their known address/es. The communication/s sent to the said address/es via speed post were returned with the notation, “ Item Returned No such person in the address” and “Item Returned Addressee Left without instructions ” whereas the communications sent via Courier at the various address/es of the respondents have been returned with the notations “Returned to Branch.” It is stated that the respondents have also been served via email at [email protected].

¶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 taken due steps to effect service on the respondents and has thereby discharged its onus to effect service on the respondents.

¶29

In the circumstances, the present petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, despite no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 11. Since the existence of the arbitration clause is evident from a perusal of the Master Loan Agreement, there is no impediment to constituting an arbitral tribunal for adjudicating the disputes between the parties, as mandated in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in 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. 12. Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

ARB.P. 1311/2024 Page 3 of 4

¶32

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:0 4.12.2024 23:19:15

¶33

Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶34

Accordingly, Ms. Neeru Vaid, Advocate (Mobile No.+91 9582619834) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶35

The respondents 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.

¶36

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. 16. Let the arbitration take place under the aegis of and as per the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). 17. 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.

¶37

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case. 19. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶39

DECEMBER 2, 2024/ gm

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

ARB.P. 1311/2024 Page 4 of 4

¶42

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Dat e:0 4.12.2024 23:19:15

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Omega Manpower Solution through Its Proprietor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Omega Manpower Solution through Its Proprietor and Anr.

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

Delhivery Limited Vs Vintage Furnitures

Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs M/S Chintamani Food and Snacks

Software Technology Park of India Vs Covenant Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd.

Mahavir Transmission Limited Vs Balaji Traders

Mrs Shanta Kathuria & Anr. Vs Ishwarya Lakshmi Chinnam

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bansal Steels through Its Proprietor Sh Vikas Aggarwal and Anr.