PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV v. BERRYS AUTO ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT

2. MR. DEEPAK SURI S/O MR. RAM LABHAYA SURI RESIDENT OF: HOUSE NO. 8/4, OPPOSITE ANDHRA BANK BRANCH, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHl-110 008

3. MR. MOHIT SURI S/O MR. DEEPAK SURI RESIDENT OF: C-203, NJRALA NAGAR, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 020

4. MS. GEETA SURI W/O MR. DEEPAK SURI RESIDENT OF: HOUSE NO. 8/4. OPPOSJTE ANDHRA BANK BRANCH EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110 008

5. MR. ROHIT SURI S/O MR. DEEPAK SURI RESIDENT OF: C-203, NIRALA NAGAR, LUCKNOW, UTT AR PRADESI I - 226 020 (Through: Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv.) .....Respondent + ARB.P. 46/2025 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED (TRANSFEREE OF TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED PURSUANT TO AN APPROVED SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT BY NCLT, MUMBAI) REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 11th FLOOR, TOWER A, PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI – 400013 BRANCH OFFICE AT: 7TH FLOOR VlDEOCON TOWER, BLOCK El, JHANDEWALA EXTENSION, NEW DELHl- 110055 (Through: Mr. Savyasachi K.Sahai, Adv.) .....Petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 15:18:10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Versus BERRYS AUTO ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 8/4 EAST PATEL NAGAR, DELHI, INDIA - 110005 ALSO A VATLARE AT· B 16, SIL ANCILLARY ESTATE, INDUSTRIAL AREA AMAUSI, AMAUSI, NADARGANJ, LUCKNOW, UTT AR PRADESH - 226 008 AND AT: C-23, UPSIDC INDUSTR1AL AREA, INDUSTRIAL AREA AMAUSl, AMAUSI, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226 008 AND AT: G-15, UPSIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHINHAT INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVA ROAD, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH - 226 019 (Through: Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Adv.) .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. For the sake of brevity, the pertinent facts of the aforesaid two Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 15:18:10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV petitions are considered as under:- ARB.P. 38/2025 3. The facts would indicate that respondent No.1 applied for finance facility to the petitioner. The Facility was initially sanctioned on 10.08.2018 and subsequently renewed or modified multiple times through various sanction and extension letters, with corresponding agreements executed on each occasion. The repayment terms were adjusted due to requests for a moratorium during COVID-19 and other negotiations. Pursuant to the request of respondent No.1, the petitioner, vide sanction letter dated

08.05.2023, appears to have removed and modified the facility. Pursuant to the terms therein, the respondent and petitioner executed inter alia the Loan cum Guarantee Agreement for Channel Finance dated 22.07.2023 read with the Master Terms and Conditions. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 has committed defaults in repayment of the amounts due. Subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to issue a Loan Recall Notice dated 27.11.2024 recalling the Facility and invoking arbitration under Clause 12 of the Channel Finance agreement. ARB.P. 46/2025 5. The facts manifest that on the request of the respondent, the petitioner sanctioned a term loan vide sanction letter dated 14.10.2020, which was duly accepted and countersigned by the respondent. Following this, the respondent and the petitioner executed the Term Loan Agreement on 17.10.2020. Pursuant to the agreement, the sanctioned loan amount was disbursed to the respondent. However, as per the petition the respondent defaulted in repaying the loan, thereby breaching the terms of the financing Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 15:18:10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV documents. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Loan Recall Notice dated

15.02.2024, recalling the facility and invoking arbitration. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. 7. The respondent by way of filing their reply has raised multiple objections including the objection with respect to the maintainability of the instant petition on two fundamental grounds. First, respondent No.4 has not signed the agreement and his signatures are forged. Second, the petitioner has not complied with the RBI’s guidelines for restructuring of the loan. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the above petitions reveals that in two of the petitions, i.e., ARB.P. 38/2025 and ARB.P. 46/2025, the parties are the same and disputes also arose out of similar factual matrices involving disputes with respect non-payment of loan amount and breach of fiscal discipline. 10. In ARB.P. 187/2025 and other connected matters titled as Railtech Technologies Pvt Ltd v Union Of India, this Court while considering the decisions of the Supreme Court in P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Broker (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd1, Gammon India Ltd. v. National Highways Authority2 held that since all petitions therein involved similar issues, a consolidation of issues and appointment of single arbitrator would serve the ends of justice, ensure consistency in findings, and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 1(2012) 1 SCC 594 2 2020 SCC OnLine Del 659 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 15:18:10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

11. On the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, the Court has considered Clause 12 of the Channel Finance Agreement and of the Term Loan agreement, read as under:- “Clause 12 of the Channel Finance Agreement 6 (dated 22.07.2023): "If any dispute, difference or claim arises between any of the Oblig:;rs and the Lender in connection with the Facility or as to the interpretation, validity. implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under these T&Cs or a!leged breach of the Facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled bv nrhitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed as per the procedure below and to be held at such place as agreed bv the parties in Serial No. 17 o(Annexure 1 hereto of the Af!reement. The Party invoking the arbitration ("Claimant") shall address a notice to the other party ("Respondent") suggesting the names of not more than three arbitrators, all of whom shall be either retired judges of the District Court. High Court or the Supreme Court or a lawyer having minimum I 0 years,· relevant experience. The Respondent shall either: (i) Confirm in writing acceptance of one amongst the proposed names as the sole arbitrator to the Claimant within a period often (10) days from the date o(the notice (""Notice Period").·or (ii) Convev objection, if any, in writing to the Claimant against the proposed names of the sole arbitrator within the said Notice Period. However, i( the Claimant does not receive any response from the Respondent within the said Notice Period, the Claimant shall be entitled lo nominate any one person from among.st the proposed thraa names as the sole arbNrator Sf and such arbitrator shall be deemed to be appointed by both the Parties. In the event, the Respondent conveys its objection as per Oi) above then the sole arbitrator will be appointed by a Court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall be conducted under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliations Act. 1996, together with its amendments. any statutory modifications or re- enactment thereof.for the time being in force. The arb;tration proceedings shall be conducted in English language. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the Obligors. " “12. Arbitration If any dispute, difference or claim arises between any of the Obligors and the Lender in connection with the Facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the Facility Documents or alleged breach of the Facility Documents or Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:03.06.2025 15:18:10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration to be held at the place as mentioned at Serial No. 17 of Annexure 1 hereto, in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereto and shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English language. Cost of arbitration shall be borne by the Obligors.”

12. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. This Court as well in the order dated 24.04.2025 in the case of ARB.P. 145/2025 titled as Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section

11. The Court held as under:- “9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning3, while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 4 has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else.

10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.5, and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,6 that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would not apply after the decision of Re: Interplay. The abovenoted paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd reads as under:- “114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry at