SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Co-op Bank – Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 26866 of 2022, Arbitration Application (L) No. 26495 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate, Amritam Mandal, Advocate, Anukul Seth, Advocate, Nishtha Malik, Advocate, Sonali Kochar, Advocate, Yatin Shah, Advocate, Veer Kankaria, Advocate, Sunil Shukla, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the disclosure requirements, apply to arbitration proceedings under special statutes such as the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, emphasizing the importance of independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Sec. 11(5) read with Sec. 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sec. 21 Notice - Sec. 12 - 5th, 6th, and 7th Schedule - Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator under Sec. 11(5) read with Sec. 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the objections raised under Sec. 12 and 13. The court also considered the appointment under Sec. 84(4) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, and the applicability of the Vth, VIth, and VIIth Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd, Bombay, initiated arbitration proceedings against the opponents for defaulting on a loan facility. The opponents challenged the appointment of the arbitrator and sought termination of the mandate, appointment of a new arbitrator, and interim stay of the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator was valid under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, and that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the disclosure requirements, applied to the arbitration proceedings.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the arbitrator's appointment, the applicability of disclosure requirements, and the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the disclosure requirements, applied to the arbitration proceedings under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The court emphasized the importance of independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Arbitration Applications, upholding the impugned order passed by the Sole Arbitrator, and directed the arbitrator to make the necessary disclosures to continue with the arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. By the two applications filed under Sec. 11(5) read with Sec. 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the two applicants, who are the opponents before the Arbitral Tribunal, which was constituted to adjudicate the claim filed by the respondent Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd, Bombay, seek the following reliefs :-

(i) The mandate of the learned Arbitrator be terminated on account of lacunae of S.21 Notice and also as de-jure and de-facto being ineligible to act as an arbitrator as his appointment is hit under Sec. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with 5th 6th and 7th Schedule thereunder,

(ii) Another arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

(iii) Interim stay of all further proceedings in the arbitration till the disposal of the instant application be granted by this Hon'ble Court;

2. The applicants proceed to narrate in the two distinct applications, that on receipt of the communication from the Sole Arbitrator, dtd. 25/11/2021, the applicants were informed about initiation of arbitration by the respondent Bank, pursuant to which the Arbitrator had entered upon a reference and the arbitration proceedings were scheduled on 21/12/2021. Along with the said notice, the applicants received a Statement of Claim, which was staked before the Arbitrator Mr.Vasant Narayanrao Lothey (Patil), Ex-Presiding Officer, Judge DRT-3, Mumbai appointed by Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra, Pune u/s.84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short 'MSCS Act'). The claim staked by the respondent Bank in the two distinct disputes was projected on the basis that the Bank is a Multi-state Co-operative Society, which is engaged in banking business in State of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat and the opponents being the members of claimant's Bank, availed the financial facility, the opponent no.1 as the principal borrower and opponent no.2 as Joint/co-borrower. Since the loan was availed for the purpose of business expansion, it was disbursed under the distinct Asset Backed loan account, which resulted in execution of two distinct loan agreements on 22/6/2016 along with the Covering cum Undertaking from Authority cum Standing Instruction Letter. The claimant specifically pleaded that the opponents executed the Demand Promissory Note and the letter of General Lien and Set-off along with the Loan Agreement which furnished a security for due repayment of the loan along with interest, costs, charges, expenses, penal interest etc. to the Claimant/Bank. Apart from this, an Indemnity bond cum Affidavit cum Undertaking was also executed by creating a registered mortgaged on the property belonging to the opponents. Since the opponents were irregular in paying the monthly instalments and/or clearing the outstanding loan amount and neglected and avoided to regularize the outstanding loan, in respect of the loan facility, they rendered themselves liable for future consequences. This resulted in the Claimant recalling the entire loan facility through the legal notice issued to the opponents and this covered an amount of the loan along with interest, penal interest, costs, charge, expenses etc. Apart from this, it is also the claim of the Bank that they have initiated proceedings under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the District Magistrate has passed an order for taking physical possession of the mortgaged premises. Since the arbitration was invoked and according to the applicants, they were not intimated about invocation of arbitration, the applicants have questioned the commencement of arbitration proceedings, which according to them, can only be commenced, after a notice is issued u/s.21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

3. The applicants, on receipt of the claim of the Bank, realised that the Arbitrator has been appointed u/s.84(4) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top