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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Sanjeev Malhotra – Petitioner
Versus
SBI Global Factors Ltd. & anr. – Respondents
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 778 of 2024
Decided On : 23-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner:Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar, Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar, Mr. Pushpvijay Kanoji, Mr. Pranay Kamdar, Mr. Ritwik Kulkarni and Mr. Dhananjay Nagarkar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Cherag Balsara with Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Jovita Pareira i/b. Mr. Raj Kakde, Mr. Mahesh Ayar.

The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, affirming the necessity for evidence of debt and reaffirming the co-extensive liability of the guarantor with that of the principal debtor, despite claims of procedural flaws and delays.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to arbitral award - Award granted claims in domestic factoring facility - Petitioner, while personally guaranteeing, contested validity asserting non-existence of debt and procedural delays - Court held: the Tribunal's finding of 'almost admitted' claim by principal debtor upheld as consistent, litigant's submissions on delays viewed unfavorably, and all claims duly substantiated - No material evidence of forgery substantiated - Award validly passed without unnecessary delay. (Paras 18-30, 54-56)

(B) Arbitral Tribunal's Role - Arbitrators must engage substantively with presented facts but higher courts do not engage in merits reassessment; delays must not create adverse impacts on findings of awards - Rigorous evaluation of applications by the Tribunal denoted adherence to procedural justice. (Paras 19, 30, 53)

(C) Burden of Proof - Guarantor's liability remains co-extensive with principal debtor's debt, necessitating substantive proof of debt existence from claimants; merely delays do not suffice to imperil efficacy of awards. (Paras 10, 25, 64)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, against arbitral award of Rs.43.45 crores, argued against claims held effective through several contracts and guarantees.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed on all grounds, with upholding of findings from Award as factual and procedural correctness established.

Issues: Validity of award amid allegations of forgery, delay, and alleged non-resolution of applications.

Ratio Decidendi: Petitioner's contention of procedural flaws found lacking; rationale of verdict relied on procedural adequacy and Tribunal's comprehensive engagement with evidence.

Result: Arbitration Petition dismissed without costs.

Table of Content
1. arbitration act petition filed to invalidate an arbitral award. (Para 1)
2. factual background on parties and agreements. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. details of claims and underlying disputes. (Para 5 , 6)
4. petitioner's application against the arbitral award. (Para 7 , 8)
5. objections raised against the award. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. defending the arbitral tribunal's decisions. (Para 12 , 13)
7. claims regarding delay and its implications. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
8. court's observations on procedural issues. (Para 18)
9. operative directions of the arbitral award. (Para 19 , 20)
10. assessment of the arbitral tribunal’s findings. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
11. delay in the award and its significance. (Para 24 , 25)
12. court's views on timing of award delivery. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
13. consequences of procedural delays in arbitration. (Para 29 , 30)
14. arguments on non-decision of interim applications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
15. discussion on the validity of grounds for objection. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
16. applicability of laws and previous judgments. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
17. determining the adequacy of reasoning in awards. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
18. final objections and rejection of claims. (Para 43 , 44)
19. outcome and implications of the court's decision. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
20. conclusions drawn from the arbitration proceedings. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
21. final judgment and order dismissing the petition. (Para 51 , 52 , 53)
22. court dismisses arbitration petition with no costs. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) The Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking invalidation of the Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. By the impugned Award, the Arbitral Tribunal has allowed the claims of Respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs.28,16,51,442.87/- in respect of domestic factoring facility alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1 April 2011. The Arbitral Tribunal has further directed Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to jointly and severally pay to Respondent No.1 amount of Rs.15,29,35,047.19/- towards reverse factoring facility alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1 April 2011. Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are further ordered and directed to specifically perform the obligations in sanction letter dated 21 June 2007. The Arbitral Tribunal has also awarded costs of arbitration in favour of Respondent No.1.

FACTS

2) Petitioner was a Director and shareholder of Respondent No.2-Company- M/s. Rayalseema Commodities Ltd., which is currently under liquidation and which used to carry on business inter alia of export, purchase, sale, distribution, stocking, dealing with, and importing of flowers, agricultural products, rice, wheat, pulses, sugarcane, oil seeds, spices, alcohol, beverages, tea, coffee etc. The name of Respondent No.2-Company was formerly Sudarshan Overseas Limited. By Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name dated 4 March 2010, Respondent No.2 is now known as M/s. Rayalseema Commodities Limited (Rayalseema).

3) Respondent No.1 was formerly known as Global Trade Finance Ltd which is a subsidiary of State Bank of India. On 15 January 2010, Global Trade Finance Ltd amalgamated with SBI Factors and Commercial Services Private Limited, and the resultant Company is known as SBI Global Factors Ltd. They are collectively referred to as SBI Global.

4) By letter of sanction dated 21 June 2007, SBI Global sanctioned to Rayalseema trade finance facilities upto the limit of Rs.15 crores subject to the condition of Petitioner alongwith Mr. Sudarshan Malhotra and Sunayana Malhotra, giving their personal guarantees. Petitioner as Director of Rayalseema was authorised to seek revision/enhancement of the trade finance facilities sanctioned vide letter dated 21 June 2007. Rayalseema executed Global Accounts Receivable Management Agreement (GARMA) and Import Factoring Agreement with SBI Global on 3 July 2007. Petitioner executed Deed of Guarantee date

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