Allowed

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandan Kumar Pandey Prop of Walkton Technologies and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2024ARB.P./922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, allowed a petition for appointing an arbitrator after an earlier unilateral appointment was declared unenforceable. Referral made to DIAC for constituency nomination.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; disputes referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC); DIAC requested to nominate arbitrator; respondents to be served afresh under DIAC Rules.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandan Kumar Pandey… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 922/2024

¶4

MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mehvish Khan, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

CHANDAN KUMAR PANDEY PROP OF WALKTON TECHNOLOGIES AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 09.09.2024

¶9

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under an agreement dated 28.11.2019 entitled “ Master Loan Agreement ”.

¶10

The agreement contains an arbitration clause [clause 10.1] which provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration of a sole arbitrator, appointed by the petitioner. New Delhi has been designated as the seat of arbitration. Under Clause 9.1, Courts in Delhi have also been vested with exclusive jurisdiction.

¶11

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner first invoked arbitration by a notice dated 31.08.2021 and appointed an arbitrator. The learned arbitrator passed an ex-parte award on 22.11.2021.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

ARB.P. 922/2024

¶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 12/09/2024 at 12:11:55

¶15

However, in execution proceedings filed by the petitioner, the executing Court declared the award to be unenforceable by an order dated 11.03.2024, on the ground that an arbitrator had been appointed unilaterally by the petitioner herein.

¶16

The petitioner has thereafter invoked arbitration afresh on 13.05.2024, and has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act, in which the learned District Court has passed interim orders in its favour. 5. As the notice of invocation failed to elicit a response, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act. 6. Notice was issued in this petition on 05.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service, in which it is stated that she has served a copy of the petition upon both the respondents by email at the email addresses [email protected] and [email protected] on 06.08.2024 and the emails have not bounced back. These email addresses also appear in Schedule-I of the Agreement under the head “Details of Borrowers/Co-Borrowers and Guarantors”. As the respondents have not entered appearance despite service as aforesaid, the petition is taken up for hearing. 7. At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court is only required to satisfy itself prima facie as to the existence of an arbitration agreement. Having regard to the material on record, including Clause 10.1 of the Agreement, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for appointment of an arbitrator leaving all questions on maintainability and merits open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the disputes between the parties under the Master Loan Agreement dated 28.11.2019

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

ARB.P. 922/2024

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 12/09/2024 at 12:11:55

¶21

are referred to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”] and will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. DIAC is requested to nominate an arbitrator from its panel.

¶22

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference. 10. As the respondents have not entered appearance in these proceedings, it is made clear that the respondents are to be served afresh, in accordance with DIAC Rules, in the arbitration proceedings. 11. Needless to say, all rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability, maintainability of the claims and on merits, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶23

The petition stands disposed of in these terms.

¶24

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶25

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 ‘pv’/

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

ARB.P. 922/2024

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 12/09/2024 at 12:11:55

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandan Kumar Pandey Prop of Walkton Technologies and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandan Kumar Pandey Prop of Walkton Technologies and 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

Cats Ambulance Staff Union & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Geeta Agencies through Its Prop Shubham Goyal and Ors.

Rajat Gupta Vs M/S Steering Securities & Fiannce Pvt. Ltd.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bittoo Singh Prop of Belmond

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abdul Wahid Steel and Iron India Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors and Ors.

M Sudarshan Rao D through His Legal Heir Mummini Deepak Vs Gail India Limited