Axis Finance Limited v. Palanivel Rajan B
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Abu John Mathew, Advocate.
versus PALANIVEL RAJAN B .....Respondent Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
O R D E R
% 16.05.2025 1.
This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
2.
On 20.12.2024, learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) had allowed an application filed by the Petitioner under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service of the Respondent on the ground that notice could not be served to the Respondent through ordinary mode and notice sent through speed post was received back unserved with the report 'addressee left without instructions'. The address on which the notices were sent was the last known address of the Respondent. Petitioner was allowed publication in newspaper 'The Hindu' in English language and 'Daily Thenthi' in regional language having circulation in area of Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. 3.
When the petition was listed on 21.04.2025, Court noted that as per the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Respondent was served by publication in both the newspapers on 10.02.2025. However, there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent despite two calls of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
matter. In the interest of justice, adverse order was deferred listing the matter for today and making it clear that in case the Respondent chooses to remain unrepresented on the next date, Court shall proceed in his absence. 4.
This is a second call of the matter and none appears on behalf of the Respondent even on the second call. Respondent is accordingly set ex parte. 5.
Facts to the extent relevant and as averred in the petition are that on 14.02.2022, Petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.22,55,383/- to the Respondent, on his making an application and a Loan Agreement was executed. Respondent, however, failed to adhere to the repayment obligations and committed default. Between May, 2023 to January, 2024, Petitioner repeatedly approached the Respondent for regularising the loan account by repaying the same but to no avail. Accordingly, Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the Loan Agreement and issued a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 05.02.2024 but despite service of notice, there was no response by the Respondent. 6.
The Loan/Facility Agreement contains an arbitration clause which provides that all disputes, differences and/or claim or questions arising out of the Loan Agreement will be referred for arbitration to be held in accordance with 1996 Act.
The Clause is extracted hereunder, for ease of reference:- "(i) All disputes, differences and/or claim or questions arising out of these presents or in any way touching or concerning the same or as to constructions, meaning or effect thereof or as to the right, obligations and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall be referred to and settled by arbitration, to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof, of a sole arbitrator to be nominated by the Lender, and in the event of death, unwillingness, refusal, neglect, inability or incapability of a person so appointed to act as an arbitrator, the Lender may appoint a new arbitrator to be a sole arbitrator.
The arbitrator shall The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
not be required to give any reasons for the award and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be held Mumbai/Delhi." 7.
Disputes having arisen between the parties, Petitioner sent a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act invoking the arbitration clause and calling upon the Respondent to either remit the outstanding dues or in the alternative consent to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator whose name was proposed in the notice. The notice was delivered to the Respondent as per proof of delivery appended to the present petition. Respondent has failed to act in terms of the invocation notice and has also chosen to abstain from the present proceedings.
8.
Accordingly, Coordinator, Delhi International Arbitration Centre ('DIAC') is requested to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of DIAC and as per its Rules. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be as per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018. 9.
Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference.
10.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.
11.
Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 16, 2025/RW/shivam The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.