Vashishta and Ms. Suman Khatri, Advs.) v. RAMA ROAD, NAJAFGARH ROAD

(Through: Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Samir S. Vashishta and Ms. Suman Khatri, Advs.) .....PETITIONER versus

1. SUMO LIFE CARE PRIVATE LIMITED. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 35-C, FIRST FLOOR, RAMA ROAD, NAJAFGARH ROAD DELHI-110015 Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPAK BISSYAN Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:19:17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV ALSO AT; 3/15, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, WEST PATEL NAGAR, DELHI-110008

2. RAJIV KUMAR DANDONA S/O JAGDISH LAI DANDONA, R/O H.NO. 35, GALI NO. 15, NEAR PATEL PARK, WEST PATEL NAGAR, DELHI-110008 ALSO AT: HOUSE NO. 14/22, 3rd FLOOR, EAST PATEL NAGAR, CENTRAL DELHI-110018

3. M.P. SINGH S/O SUNDER SINGH R/O H. NO. 7, BLOCK- 40, 2nd FLOOR, EAST PATEL NAGAR, DELHI-110008 (Through: None.) .....RESPONDENTS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) by the petitioner, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties under the Loan agreement.

2. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner reads as under:- Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPAK BISSYAN Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:19:17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV access having “1. That I am the counsel for Petitioner, well conversant with the facts address [email protected] and hence competent to swear on the present affidavit. 2. I say that the Deponent on 09.04.2025 had send the Notice along with entire set of the Petition at the email address of the Respondents i.e. [email protected] and the same has been bounced back with remarks “Their inbox is full or its getting too much mail right now”. Printout of the email is annexed as Document – P-1. 3. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent no. 1 through speed post on 08.04.2025 at 35C, First Floor, Rama Road, Najafgarh Road, Delhi 110015 and the same has returned on 15.04.2025 having remarks “Addressee left without Instruction” . That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No.1 another address through speed post on 08.04.2025 at 3/15, Lower Ground Floor, West Patel Nagar, Delhi 110008 and the same has returned having remarks “No such person in the address 09.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent no. 2 through speed post on 08.04.2025 at H. No. 35, Gali No 15, Near Patel Park, West Patel Nagar, Delhi 110008 and the same has returned having remarks “No such person in the address on 09.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent no. 2 another address through speed post on 08.04.2025 at House No. 14/22, 3'^ Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Delhi 110018 and the same has returned having remarks “No such person in the address 09.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent no. 3 through speed post on 08.04.2025 at H. No. 7, Block 40, 2nd Floor, East Patel Nagar, Delhi 110008 and the same has returned having remarks “No such person in the address on 15.04.2025”. Copy of the speed post receipts are annexed as Document P2 and Tracking Report as generated from the internet are annexed as Document P3. 4. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No. 1 through approved courier on 08.04.2025 and the same has returned having remarks “No such person in the address 09.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No. 1 another address through approved courier on 08.04.2025 and the same has been delivered on 10.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No.2 through approved courier on 08.04.2025 and the same is in-transit/under process till date. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No. 2 another address through approved courier on 08.04.2025 and the same has been delivered on 09.04.2025”. That the notice along with complete set of paperbook was sent to Respondent No. 3 through approved courier on 08.04.2025 and the same has been delivered on 09.04.2025. Copy of Courier Receipt is annexed as Document P4 and tracking Report Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPAK BISSYAN Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:19:17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV has been annexed as Document P5. 5. to the Respondents.” That the affidavit is being filed in Compliance of service being done

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the address at which service has been effected through courier is the same as the one furnished by the respondent in the loan application form, placed on record as Annexure P-5.

4. In view of the above and the fact that no one appears on behalf of the respondent despite due service, the Court proceeds to consider the prayer on merits.

5. As per the case set up by the petitioner, it appears that vide sanction letter dated 24.08.2019, an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- was sanctioned to the respondent as a business loan, repayable in 36 equated monthly instalments (EMIs) of Rs. 1,29,183/- each, commencing from the 5th day of the succeeding month. Pursuant thereto, the loan agreement was duly executed between the parties. The respondents, however, committed default in repayment of the said EMIs. A legal notice was, thereafter, issued by the petitioner, but it remained without any response.

6. Therefore, in light of the continuous default, the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings against the respondents for recovery of the outstanding dues. It is the case of the petitioner that the Sole Arbitrator proceeded to pass an ex parte award dated 13.03.2023. According to the petitioner, the said award is rendered a nullity in law, having been passed unilaterally and in disregard of due process. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court under the present proceedings.

7. The Court takes note of Clause 9 of the Agreement, which reads as under:- Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEEPAK BISSYAN Signing Date:16.05.2025 16:19:17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV “9. 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 anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration to be held in [Mumbai/Delhi/Kolkata/Chennai] as may be decided ' by the Lender 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 pf arbitration shall be borne by the Obligors.”

8. 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 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 Spinning,1 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 2 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.,3 and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,4 that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the