Allowed

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Mr. Akash Verma & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Sept 2024ARB.P./691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order arises from a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for disputes under a loan agreement. The respondents consented to the reference. The Court referred the disputes to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for arbitration.

What did the court decide?

The dispute under the agreement dated 28.05.2022 is referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) with DIAC requested to nominate an arbitrator.

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Mr. Akash Verma & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 691/2024

¶4

M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

MR. AKASH VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Ms. Priya Nagar, Mr. Siddharth Goswami & Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocates. [M:-9811568418]

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 17.09.2024

¶9

By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under a loan agreement dated 28.05.2022.

¶10

The agreement contains an arbitration clause [Clause 31] which provides for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the petitioner. Delhi has been designated as the place of arbitration in Schedule-I of the agreement. Jurisdiction has also been vested in the same courts by virtue of Clause 32.

¶11

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by a notice dated 01.04.2024, which did not elicit a response.

¶12

ARB.P. 691/2024

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

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 02/07/2025 at 00:04:25

¶15

The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act.

¶16

Pursuant to notice issued on 20.05.2024, Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and submits that existence of the arbitration agreement is not disputed. He, therefore, consents to reference to arbitration leaving all defences of the respondents open for consideration by the learned arbitrator.

¶17

Having regard to the above, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the disputes under the loan agreement dated 28.05.2022 are referred to arbitration, under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi-110503 [“DIAC”]. DIAC is requested to nominate an Arbitrator from its panel. The proceedings will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to the remuneration of the learned arbitrator.

¶18

The learned arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference.

¶19

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶20

The petition stands disposed of in these terms.

¶21

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶22

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 ‘pv’/

¶23

ARB.P. 691/2024

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Mr. Akash Verma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Mr. Akash Verma & Anr.

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

Sanhita Agnihotri Vs Prakash Chandra Guwalani & Ors.

Akshay Chaturvedi Vs Ayush Chaturvedi & Ors.

Nooruddin Ahmed & Ors. Vs Raj Rani (Deceased) Thr Lrs

Bdr Builders and Developers Private Limited Vs Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta (Since Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Ors.

Siddhast Intellectual Property Innovation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and Anr.

Elektrowagen Motors Three LLP Vs Cabt Elektra Private Limited & Anr.