Allowed

M/S. Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Kmr Universal Hospital & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2024ARB.P./379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A lender sought appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes over a medical equipment term loan where the borrower defaulted on EMIs. With no respondent appearance, the court appointed Mr. Ram Kumar Gupta as sole arbitrator under the aegis of DIAC and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ram Kumar Gupta, Advocate as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes, arbitration under DIAC.

M/S. Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Kmr Universal Hospital… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 379/2024

¶4

M/S. CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr Puneet Raj Bhanderwal, Mr Ravi Shankar Garg, Ms Mamta Garg and Mr Chanakya Verma, Advs. (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S KMR UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 12.07.2024

¶10

This is a petition file under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶11

The respondents approached the petitioner-company for providing financial assistance for purchase of machines/medical equipment under loan. The petitioner sanctioned Medical Equipment Term Loan amounting to Rs.2,40,08,727/- vide sanction letter dated 30.07.2021.

¶12

The respondents executed Facility-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.08.2021 along with a Deed of Guarantee Loan in favour of the petitioner-company. The respondent was to pay 62 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs. 2,92,562/-. On 12.08.2021, part loan amount of Rs. 1,21,95,612/- was disbursed. However, due to non adherence of the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 11:38:49

¶15

installments, the petitioner was constrained to terminate the loan facility and called the respondent to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,20,29,863/(being the foreclosure amount) vide Loan Termination Notice dated 16.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶16

On 14.06.2023 the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is Clause 8.7 of the Facility-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement and reads as under:

¶17

“ 8.7. ARBITRATION

¶18

8.7.1. In case of any dispute arising out of or in relation to the Transaction Documents, the Party shall settle the dispute through arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (amendments thereto). The arbitration shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Lender. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be New Delhi, India. All proceedings shall be in English.”

¶19

The e-mail id of the respondent is contained in the application form filed by the respondent and reads as: [email protected]. It is the same e-mail id where notices have been sent by the Registry. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No.1.

¶20

For the said reasons, the respondent is served in the present petition, however, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. Since the parties are still having disputes between them, the following directions are issued:-

¶22

i) Mr. Ram Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Mob. No.9810487723) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 11:38:49

¶24

the parties.

¶25

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi hereinafter, referred to as the „DIAC‟). The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶26

iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶27

iv) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶28

v) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶29

The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶31

JULY 12, 2024 sr

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 11:38:49

M/S. Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Kmr Universal Hospital & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Kmr Universal Hospital & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.S.Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Vs Union of India Cpwd Nirman Bhawan New Delhi through Executive Engineer Bareilly

S.S.Total Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Vs Union of India Cpwd Nirman Bhawan New Delhi through Executive Engineer Bareilly

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Satbir R

M/S Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited- Sam India Jv Vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited

Sony India Private Limited Vs E-Khareedo India LLP

Aditya Birla Finance Limited Vs Rahul Trading Company & Ors.