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
| 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
GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority
Oil and Natural gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) vs. Western Geco Internattional Limited
OPG Power Generation Private Limited vs. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
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, despit....
An arbitral award may be set aside if made after expiry of the arbitrator's mandate or due to undue delay impacting its validity, reflecting violations of natural justice.
Wrongful encashment of a bank guarantee can be claimed as restitution rather than strictly under damages, highlighting the sufficiency of entitlement rather than extensive evidence. This determinatio....
Scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.