BAID FINSERV LTD. Vs. DOLAT RAM BAIRWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant arbitration application under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') has been filed by the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute pending between the parties arising out of the agreement dtd. 25/2/2017, which contains following arbitration clause:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that certain amount was borrowed by the non-applicant which he failed to repay, hence, his account has been declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and in terms of Clause 12 of the loan agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator to pass an award in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, an execution application was submitted before the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur, Metropolitan II but the same was dismissed in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Versus Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., while deciding Civil Appeal No.5306/2017, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Versus Amrapali Enterprises and Anr. (EC 122 of 2022), Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Versus United Telecom Ltd. while deciding Civil Appeal No.3972/2019, Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Prem Lal, while deciding CMPMO No.58/2023 and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus Narendra Kumar Prajapat reported in 2023 Latest Case Law 709 Del.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, under the changed circumstances and in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the above noted cases, the instant application under Sec. 11(6) of the Act of 1996 has been submitted, therefore an Arbitrator be appointed to settle the dispute pending between the parties.