Dismissed¶26

Hdfc Bank v. Pati Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC14 May 2026CR/17/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CR No. 17 of 2022; H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. v. Pati Devi & Ors.; unilateral appointment of arbitrator; arbitral award non est; execution petition dismissed; District Judge Mandi; HDB Financial Services Limited v. Jiwa Nand, Civil Revision No. 94 of 2021; legal representatives brought on record; delay condoned; abatement set aside; Romesh Verma, J.; decided 14.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision dismissed and impugned order dated 15.9.2021 upheld; CMP No. 1984 of 2025 allowed bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 on record; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶26

Hdfc Bank Vs Pati Devi — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 should be brought on record in CMP No. 1984 of 2025, with delay condoned and abatement, if any, set aside. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

CMP No. 1984 of 2025 is allowed: the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 are brought on record subject to all just exceptions, with delay condoned and abatement, if any, set aside.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the reasoning of this Court's earlier decision in Civil Revision No. 94 of 2021 (HDB Financial Services Limited v. Jiwa Nand and others, decided 5.9.2025), an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator cannot be considered an award under the provisions of the Act and is non est in the eyes of law.

¶23

Key takeaways

For reasons alike, the impugned order dated 15.9.2021 is upheld; the Court sees no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned District Judge, Mandi, and the revision stands dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision dismissed. Upholding the judgment of the learned District Judge, Mandi dated 15.9.2021, which had dismissed HDFC Bank's execution petition on the ground that the arbitrator's appointment was not as per law and the award was non est, the High Court followed its coordinate-bench ruling in Civil Revision No. 94 of 2021, HDB Financial Services Limited v. Jiwa Nand and others (decided 5.9.2025), where an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator was held non est in the eyes of law and not an award under the provisions of the Act. CMP No. 1984 of 2025 was allowed: the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 were brought on record subject to all just exceptions, with delay condoned and abatement, if any, set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of. (Romesh Verma, J.; decision dated 14.05.2026.)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CR No. 17 of 2022 Date of Decision : 14.05.2026

¶4

H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Pati Devi & Ors. ...Respondent

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

For the respondents :Respondent No.1 is stated to have expired.

¶10

Mr. Ravneet Kumar, Advocate, vice Yashpal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶11

Respondent No.3 is ex-parte vide order dated 01.05.2025

¶12

Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

¶13

CMP No. 1984 of 2025

¶14

The present application has been filed by the applicants for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, who is stated to have expired on 06.10.2019.

¶15

Learned counsel for the non-applicants have no objection in case the present application is allowed.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

¶18

In view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and in view of the submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicants, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, as mentioned in para-4 of the application are ordered to be brought on record subject to all just exceptions after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any.

¶19

Application is allowed subject to all just

¶20

exceptions.

¶21

Civil Revision No.17 of 2022

¶22

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi dated 15.9.2021, whereby an execution petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was not as per law and hence, the award pronounced by the arbitrator is non est.

¶23

The issue of an arbitral award passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator cannot be considered as an award under the provisions of the Act and consequently, the same has to be regarded as non est in the eyes of law came up for consideration before this Court in Civil Revision No. 94 of 2021 titled as HDB Financial Services Limited vs. Jiwa Nand

¶24

¶25

and others decided on 5.9.2025, wherein award so passed was held to be non est in the eyes of law.

¶26

For reasons alike, the impugned order dated 15.9.2021 is upheld. This Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., therefore, the revision stands dismissed.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(Romesh Verma), Judge

¶29

14.05.2026 (veena)

Hdfc Bank v. Pati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Pati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

NHAI Vs Sukh Ram and Ors.

Kamli Vs Amar Singh

Bhagwani Devi Vs Krishan Murti and Others

Narayan Dutt Sharma Vs Aditya Negi

Jhabe Ram Vs Sunder Since Deceased through Lrs Nitu Singh and Ors.

NHAI Vs Savitri