Allowed

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

Delhi HC9 Sept 2024ARB.P./944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a sole arbitrator from the DIAC panel to adjudicate disputes under a 2019 Loan Agreement, noting the respondent was served but did not appear.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; dispute referred to arbitration under DIAC rules; AR appointed from panel; respondent served afresh during proceedings.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bittoo Singh Prop of… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 944/2024 MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mehvish Khan, Advocate. versus BITTOO SINGH PROP OF BELMOND .....Respondent Through: None.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 09.09.2024

¶8

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 22.01.2019 entitled “Loan Agreement” [“the Agreement”].

¶9

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. Courts in Delhi have also been vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Agreement [clause 9].

¶10

Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 28.07.2023 to the respondent. As the invocation notice failed to elicit a response, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act.

¶11

Notice was issued in this petition on 08.07.2024. The Registry reports that the respondent has been served at one of the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties, which is also the address reflected in

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

ARB.P. 944/2024

¶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 11/09/2024 at 12:31:35

¶15

the Agreement. As the respondent has not entered appearance despite service as aforesaid, the petition is taken up for hearing.

¶16

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 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. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the disputes between the parties under the Loan Agreement dated 22.01.2019 are referred to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”]. The arbitration proceedings will be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to remuneration of the learned arbitrator. 7. DIAC is requested to nominate an arbitrator from its panel. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, prior to entering upon the reference. 8. As the respondent has not entered appearance in these proceedings, it is made clear that the respondent is to be served afresh, in accordance with DIAC Rules, in the arbitration proceedings.

¶17

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.

¶18

The petition stands disposed of in these terms.

¶19

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶20

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024// SS/

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

ARB.P. 944/2024

¶23

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 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

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