Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
STCI Finance Limited - Appellant
Versus
H.S. Bedi - Respondent
O.M.P. (E) (COMM.) 5 of 2021 & I.A. 10225 of 2021
Decided On : 18-08-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent's agreement to grant prayers (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's request for witness and documents (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court grants petition and directs appearance (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. final order allowing the petition (Para 7) |
(Video-Conferencing)
1. Mr. Amit Vachhar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that he has no objection to the grant of the prayers in this petition, which has been preferred under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The petitioner prays that the Branch Manager, HDFC Ltd. Capital Court, Munirka, Outer Ring Road, Olof Palme Marg, New Delhi-110067 may be directed to testify as a witness, on behalf of the petitioner, in the arbitral proceedings presently pending before the learned Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed (Retd.), as the sole arbitrator, titled "STCI Finance Ltd. v. Lt. Col. (Retd.) HS. Bedi & Ors." on 6th September, 2021, being the next date fixed in the arbitral proceedings.
3. It is also prayed that the concerned official from the said bank may be directed to carry, with him the documents enlisted in para xvi of para 5 of this petition, which may be reproduced thus:
"1. The Letter dated 27.09.2013 wherein the Petitioner apprised HDFC Ltd. that the Respondents have requested for grant of Loan Facility offering second charge on the Mortgaged Property.
2. Respondents letter dated 28.09.2013 addressed to HDFC Ltd., CC'ed to the Petitioner herein, apprising them of the availment of the present loan facility to the tune of Rs.15 Crs.
3. The letter dated 30.09.2013 from HDFC Ltd. (in response to Claimant's letter dated 27.09.2013) confirmed and extended the second charge (ceded vide letter dated 03.01.2013 for a loan of 100 Crores) on the Mortgaged Property.
4. The letter dated 17.10.2012 issued by HDFC Ltd. to the Petitioner/Claimant laying down terms and conditions of the second charge.
5. The letter dated 03.01.2013 issued by HDFC Ltd. to the Petitioner/Claimant confirming second and subservient charge over the mortgaged property.
6. The letter dated 01.01.2013 issued by the Respondents to HDFC Ltd. confirming of consenting to cede second charge.
7. Declaration dated 01.01.2013 executed by the Respondents herein."
4. Mr. Vachhar, learned counsel for the respondents, as already noticed, has no objection.
5. Accordingly, the prayer in the petition is granted.
6. The Branch Manager, HDFC Ltd. Capital Court, Munirka, Outer Ring Road, Olof Palme Marg, New Delhi-67 is directed to be present, either himself or through the concerned official conversant with the facts, with the afore-noted documents, to depose before the learned Arbitral Tribunal on 6th September, 2021.
7. This petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The court may grant requests for witness testimony in arbitral proceedings when unopposed by other parties, ensuring the availability of relevant evidence.
Arbitration proceedings allow for issuance of summons to witnesses to facilitate evidence presentation, ensuring fair adjudication.
The court upheld the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal to permit a party's request for assistance in summoning witnesses under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court confirmed the obligation of a Resolution Professional under insolvency proceedings to participate in arbitration and present relevant records as mandated by Section 27 of the Arbitration an....
Judicial interference under Article 227 is limited in arbitration matters, especially when a comprehensive mechanism exists under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for addressing non-arbitrability....
Parties consented to refer their disputes to arbitration, leading to the court's appointment of an independent arbitrator, adhering to the arbitration agreement.
Appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
The court established that serious allegations of fraud are arbitrable and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counterclaims.
A party does not have to name an Arbitrator unless mutual consent exists, emphasizing the validity of the Trigger Notice in seeking arbitration and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
The rejection of an application to submit additional documents post-cross-examination in arbitration proceedings is valid when procedural fairness is upheld and no substantial injustice arises.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
