Disposed¶22

Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. v. Jaswinder Singh Kohli Proprietor of Sony Enterprises & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Nov 2025ARB.P./1565/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition against Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 order appointing arbitrator; Section 114 CPC; maintainability of review; Diamond Entertainment Technologies v. Religare Finvest 2023 SCC OnLine Del 95 relied upon; limitation/time-bar objection to be raised before Arbitrator; earlier award set aside under Section 34 for unilateral appointment of Sole Arbitrator; loss of paper-book not excusing non-appearance after service; Dhani Loans and Services Ltd v. Jaswinder Singh Kohli; Delhi High Court; Amit Bansal J.; order dated 01.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

The objection with regard to limitation can be taken before the Arbitrator. ¶20

Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. Vs Jaswinder Singh Kohli Proprietor… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REVIEW PET. 592/2025 IN

¶3

- ARB.P. 1565/2025

¶4

DHANI LOANS AND SERVICES LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Vikas Maini & Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

JASWINDER SINGH KOHLI PROPRIETOR OF SONY ENTERPRISES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel ( appearance not given ).

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 01.12.2025

¶9

REVIEW PET. 592/2025

¶10

The present petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed on behalf of the applicant/ respondents, seeking review of the Order passed by this Court on 10^th November, 2025.

¶11

In paragraph no. 6 of the application, it is admitted by the applicants/ respondents that they were duly served. However, the applicants/ respondents did not appear as they had lost the paper-book of the matter. 3. That cannot be a ground for not appearing despite service.

¶12

Mr. Banati, counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/ petitioner submits that the present review petition is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

¶13

ARB.P. 1565/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

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 04/12/2025 at 10:58:44

¶16

1996, appointing an Arbitrator.

¶17

In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Diamond Entertainment Technologies v. Religare Finvest , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 95. Paragraph no. 22 of the said judgment is set out below:

¶18

“ 22. By way of the present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the Order vide which an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been allowed. Since the Order made under Section 11 of the Act is in exercise of the statutory powers as defined under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, any review of the same can be only within the parameters of the Statute. Since, there is no provision of review in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, this Court finds itself without any jurisdiction to review the present Order.”

¶19

In any event, the ground for review raised by the respondents is that the claims raised by the petitioner in the present petition are time-barred.

¶20

In my view the objection with regard to limitation can be taken before the Arbitrator.

¶21

To be noted, there was an earlier arbitration proceeding between the parties which resulted in an award in favour of the petitioner herein, however, the said award was set aside in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the respondent on the ground that the Sole Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the petitioner.

¶22

In view thereof, the present application is disposed of, leaving it open for the respondents to raise objections with regard to limitation before the Arbitrator.

¶23

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶24

DECEMBER 1, 2025 at

¶25

ARB.P. 1565/2025

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. v. Jaswinder Singh Kohli Proprietor of Sony Enterprises & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. v. Jaswinder Singh Kohli Proprietor of Sony Enterprises & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medhavi Aspire Private Limited Vs Shree Enterprise through Its Sole Proprietor Mrs. Shringarika S Agrawal

Medhavi Aspire Private Limited Vs Yashwi Teleservices Private Limited

Ms Swati Pant & Anr. Vs Anant Raj Ltd. & Anr.

Jpfl Films Private Limited Vs Ms. Mrinalini Singh

Parshva Innovation Vs Arcis Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Kumar Printing and Textiles and Anr.