IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
M/s Fermina Developers Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited – Respondent
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 359, 371, 370, 369, 366, 365 of 2022 & I.A. 20831, 20886, 20884, 20882, 20878, 20876 of 2022 (Production of Document), O.M.P.(I) (COMM.), 362, 363, 364, 367, 368 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions filed under section 9 of the arbitration act. (Para 1) |
| 2. common facts in the petitions used for brevity. (Para 2) |
| 3. loan history and securities documented in loan agreements. (Para 3) |
| 4. ots terms and payments made before recalls claimed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. notices issued is a significant procedural step. (Para 6) |
| 6. arguments on maintainability and default determinations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 7. court's analysis of jurisdiction under rdb and sarfaesi. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 8. examination of statutory provisions affecting civil court jurisdiction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. non-arbitrability principles restated by supreme court. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. supreme court’s recognition of civil court roles in debt challenges. (Para 27 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. comparison between rdb and sarfaesi provisions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. judicial interpretations on jurisdictional overlaps. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 13. limitations of civil court jurisdiction over secured debts. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 14. petitioner’s obligations versus respondent's actions examined. (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 15. legal assessment of issues raised by petitioners. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. final dismissal based on established legal grounds. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
ORDER :
1. These petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[The 1996 Act] assail the validity of recall notices dated 10 November 2022 issued by the respondent. The petitioners seek a restraint against all coercive action that may be taken by the respondent pursuant to the afore noted recall notices including and extending to the invocation of guarantees furnished by the petitioners and taking any steps for disposal of valuable securities which were furnished by the petitioners under the loan agreements.
2. Since the facts in all the petitions were common and the challenge was raised against identical recall notices, the Court for the purposes of brevity proposes to notice the facts as they exist on the record of O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 368/2022 and on which arguments were addressed by learned senior counsels.
3. From the record it transpires that the said petitioner was extended credit facilities in the shape of a term loan of Rs. 25 crores in 2019. The rights and obligations of parties in connection therewith came to be embodied in a Loan Agreement dated 16 August 2019. For the purposes of securing repayment of the aforesaid loan, the petitioners also created securities which stood specified in Schedules I and III of the aforesaid Loan Agreement.
4. The petitioners assert that while initially and for several years they continued to service the loan regularly, on account of the Covid- 19 pandemic, their businesses came to be adversely impacted. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners appear to have applied for a One Time Settlement, [OTS] with the respondent. The terms of the OTS which were ultimately agreed upon came to be recorded in a letter of 01 September 2021 (OTS letter) and which provided for the petitioners liquidating the entire loan by payment of an amount of Rs.10,69,04,446/- along with interest @ 11.62% per annum payable on a monthly basis on or before 31 January 2023. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant parts of the said communication and the same is extracted hereinbelow: -
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India
A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam
Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni
Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank
Bank of Maharashtra v. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd.
Common Cause v. Union of India
Dahya Lala v. Rasul Mohd. Abdul Rahim
Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Religare Finvest Limited
Delhi High Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra
Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.
Indian Bank vs. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
M.D. Frozen Foods Exports (P) Ltd. v. Hero Fincorp Ltd.
Raval& Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran
State Bank of India vs. Jigishaben B. Sanghavi
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai
Swami Motor Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Thysssin Stahlunion GMBTT v. Steel Authority of India (1999) 9 SCC 334
Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Assn.
Union of India, namely, V. Narasimhachariar
United Bank of India vs. Satyavati Tondon
V. Ramaswami Aiyengar v. T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.
Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corpn.
Disputes regarding loan defaults under the SARFAESI Act are non-arbitrable and must be adjudicated by Debt Recovery Tribunals, emphasizing that civil court jurisdiction is excluded where statutory pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claims of banks and financial institutions under the RDDB Act are non-arbitrable, and the disputes regarding determination of debt due fel....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-arbitrability of disputes under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and RDB Act, 1993, and the lack of provision for review under the Arbitration and Co....
Point of Law : SARFAESI Act- Recovery of Debt – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – DRT has exclusive jurisdiction – jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide all the matters of civil nature, excluding tho....
The civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of sale and mortgage deeds under the SARFAESI Act, and a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
Disputes covered by special laws, creating special rights to be adjudicated and enforced by special forums, are non-arbitrable.
The jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in matters related to the classification of loan accounts as NPA under the SARFAESI Act.
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.