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

2022 Supreme(Del) 2192

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Sr. Advs. with Ms. Padmaja Kaul, Mr. Yugank Goel, Ms. Tanya Manglik, Mr. Arpit Kumar, Mr. Kushagra Shah and Mr. Vansh Bhutani, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Ankit Banati and Mr. Shravan Niranjan, Advs.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13, 17, and 18 - Borrower disputes validity of recall notices issued post-COVID pandemic, following One Time Settlement (OTS) agreement - Court addresses whether disputes are arbitrable or fall under exclusive jurisdiction of DRT for debt recovery. (Paras 1, 6, 9, 56)

(B) Non-arbitrability Principle - The Court affirmed that where statutory provisions mandate a specific forum for adjudication of disputes, civil courts cannot entertain such matters, evident from the SARFAESI Act. (Paras 50, 52)

(C) Findings: The petitioners claimed payments under the OTS were made satisfactorily, while the respondent contended there was default. The Court found the assertion of default would fall exclusively under SARFAESI jurisdiction. (Paras 54, 60)

(D)

Issues: Determination of whether the petitioners' claims, raised following action under SARFAESI, could be arbitrated or if they resided strictly within the DRT's jurisdiction. (Paras 5, 56) (E)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the dispute relates to debt liability adjudication under SARFAESI. The petitioners must raise their issues before the DRT, not in arbitration. (Paras 56, 60) (F)

Result: Petitions dismissed, affirming non-arbitrability of disputes concerning recovery actions initiated under SARFAESI. (Para 61)

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: -

    “We state that as on September 30, 2021, an amount of INR 188248848/- (Indian Rupees Eighteen Crores Eighty Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Eight only) (the "Outstanding Amount") is outstanding and payable to the Lender. However, as per discussions with the Borrower, we confirm that upon the receipt of INR 106904446/- (Indian Rupees Ten Crores Sixty Nine Lakhs Four Thousand four Hundred Forty Six only) (the "Said Amount") plus an interest of 11.62% per annum payable on a monthly basis ("p.a/p.m") on INR 106904446/- or the amount that remains outstanding out of the Said Amount with effect f

          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