KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD Vs SUNDAR LAL
- Citation2025 SCC OnLine Del 1993
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an arbitration agreement exists between parties in a contract and a dispute arises that falls within the scope of that agreement, the court shall appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, notwithstanding that the respondent has failed to appear despite proper service.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The service affidavit placed
on record by the petitioner reads as under: “Affidavit of Service I, RAJESH JANGRA ADVOCATE, ERONL: (D-1457A/2003), OFFICE AT: ED-15C & D, PITAMPURA, DELHI- DO HEREBY SELMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER:LIST MATTER ON 18.12.2024. 1. That I am the counsel for the Plaintiff in the present Petition and that my registered Email ID is; jangraadvocate@gmail.com 2. That the above captioned Petition has been sent to the defendant at his registered Email ID: sunderlal9820@qmail.com vide email dated 17.12.2024, I had emailed a copy of the complete Petition as "Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.-VsSunder Lal." 3. That the counsel for the plaintiff has served the defendant with the present petition upon his email id’s: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:29.03.2025 16:38:07
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
sunderlal9820@gmail.com 4. In the captioned case email along with petition has delivered and not bounced back. -sdDeponent” 2.
It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has successfully served the
respondents through email and speed post. Since no one has appeared for the respondent despite service, the Court is left with no option but to proceed ex-parte against the respondent. 3.
The facts of the case indicate that on 19.04.2023, a Car Finance
Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent for a loan of Rs. 10,33,061/- for the purchase of a Kia Seltos 1.5, MT bearing Engine no. DAFAPM827145. 4.
It appears that on 14.08.2023, a loan recall notice demanding payment
of the termination amount was sent to the respondent. Since the respondent failed to comply, the petitioner subsequently sent an intimation notice on 17.07.2024 regarding the invocation of arbitration for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. As per the petitioner’s case, as of 17.07.2024, a sum of ₹12,68,794.70/- was recoverable from the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 32 of the Car Finance Agreement, which unequivocally provides for the resolution of disputes through arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). 5.
It is thus seen that the dispute is amenable to be adjudicated by the
arbitrator. It is explicitly evident that there exists an arbitration clause in the event any dispute arises between the parties, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator. Reference can be made to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:29.03.2025 16:38:07
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.,1 TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.,2 Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited.,3 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 18994. 6.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that a dispute has arisen
between the parties, which requires to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court appoints Ms. Ritika Vohra, Advocate (Mobile No. 9193739786, e-mail id : advritikavohra@gmail.com ), a Sole Arbitrator as per Schedule IV of the A&C Act. 7.
The Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings,
subject to furnishing to the parties, requisite disclosures as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “A&C Act”). 8.
The Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with the
IVth Schedule of the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator. 9.
The parties shall share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral cost, equally.
10.
All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 11.
Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between 1
(2020) 20 SCC 760 (2017) 8 SCC 377 3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547 2
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:29.03.2025 16:38:07
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
the parties. Let the copy of the said order be sent to the newly appointed Arbitrator through the electronic mode as well. 12.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 24, 2025 aks/sph/mjo Click here to check corrigendum, if any
4
In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:29.03.2025 16:38:07
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free