Loan default dispute with an arbitration clause; respondents were served by e-mail per the agreement's notice clause but did not appear. Following Lease Plan India, the court held service valid and appointed a sole arbitrator under DIAC aegis.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankush Bharadwaj and Ms. Vanshika Garg, Advs.
versus
P OMKAR REDDY & ANR. .....Respondents Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
O R D E R
% 17.12.2025
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 22/12/2025 at 11:43:51
“ Clause 12 (xii) Any notice or request required or permitted under this Agreement to be given by either party to the other shall be only in writing and sent on the address of the other Party as mentioned in the Schedule “B” (or in case to the Borrower, on the
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 22/12/2025 at 11:43:51
address of the Borrower last known to the Lender): (i) If given by the Lender, may be given by personal delivery, fax or by post or by email, SMS, through Instant Messaging Services like WhatsApp or Telegram and shall be deemed to have been served upon or received by the Borrower, if given by personal delivery, when so delivered and if by post on expiration of 3 days after the same has been delivered to the post office for onward transmission to the Borrower under certificate of posting and if by email or SMS or Instant Messaging Services like WhatsApp or Telegram as soon as it has left the outbox/device of the Lender; and (ii) If given by the Borrower to the Lender when it is actually received by the Lender.”
“ 5 . By order dated 12.01.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve the respondents by email and WhatsApp at the addresses and phone numbers mentioned in the Agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service dated 22.02.2024 which demonstrates that email and WhatsApp service was effected on 20.02.2024.
6 . By order dated 06.03.2024, Mr. Pradhan was also permitted to serve the respondents through registered post and Speed Post at the address mentioned in the
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 22/12/2025 at 11:43:51
memo of parties. The learned Joint Registrar has recorded in the order dated 04.04.2024 that valid service has not been effected by these means in view of the Speed Post tracking report.
7 . It is nonetheless clear that the respondents have been duly served by email and WhatsApp. It may be noted that the email address and the mobile number of the respondents is mentioned in the Agreement itself [at page Nos. 35, 37, 40 and 43 of the petition]. The affidavit of service dated 28.03.2024, affirmed by the authorised representative/legal counsel of the petitioner - company, demonstrates service by both these modes.
8 . Although service by email and WhatsApp is sufficient, it may also be noted that in the Agreement itself, the address of the respondent for the purposes of correspondence, provided in Clause 10.3, is the address at which service has been attempted. The notice invoking arbitration sent to the same address was reported to have been delivered, but in the Speed Post report, by which the petition was sent to the address, it is stated that no such person is available at the address.
9 . In view of the fact that service upon the respondents has been duly effected by email and WhatsApp on 20.02.2024, I do not consider it necessary to await the appearance of the respondents any further.”
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 22/12/2025 at 11:43:51
appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 13. Accordingly, Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocate (Mob. 9818075100) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
DECEMBER 17, 2025 Rahul
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 22/12/2025 at 11:43:51
2 issues framed by the court
Whether service of notice on the respondents by e-mail under Clause 12(xii) of the Loan Agreement was valid despite no appearance.
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate disputes arising under the Loan Agreement dated 22.07.2023.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lease Plan India (P) Ltd. v. Rudraksh Pharma Distributor and OthersFollowed¶10
2024 SCC OnLine Del 2687 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Axis Finance Limited
P Omkar Reddy
Respondent No.2 ([email protected])
Subramonium Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
