$~1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 18.12.2025

+ FAO (COMM) 310/2025

PRIMEMOVER MOBILITY TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

.....Appellant

Through: Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Mr. Kartik

Bhatnagar, Mr. Aman Singh

Bakhshi, Mr. Shaurya Agarwal,

Mr. Faiz, Advs.

versus

SANMARG INFRA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘A&C Act’), challenging the Order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘District Judge’) in O.M.P.(Comm.) No. 230/2024, titled Primemover Mobility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanmarg Infratech Private Limited, whereby the application filed by the appellant herein under section 34

of the A&C Act was dismissed.

2. The Impugned Order has been passed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the appellant, despite time being granted,

failed to file the Fixed Deposit Receipt (‘FDR’) of the mandatory pre- deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSME Act.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the email dated 02.08.2025, received by the appellant from the bank, namely Kotak Mahindra Bank, asking for signatures from the ‘Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master’, for preparation of the FDR. The appellant had brought this to the notice of the learned District Judge on 07.08.2025. However, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that there can be no such requirement and that it was for the appellant to take up this matter with its bankers, without the interference of the court.

4. When this appeal was listed before us on 24.11.2025, it was contended by the appellant that the FDR, along with the up-to-date interest, had been prepared and the appellant was in a position to deposit the same. It was also submitted that the amount required for preparing the FDR had been duly debited by the bank within the period granted by the learned District Judge.

5. Based on the said submission, we had issued notice of this appeal to the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court as it does not fall within the ambit and scope of section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act. He submits that the Impugned Order is not an order refusing to set aside the Arbitral Award. In support of his contentions, he also places reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Chintels India Ltd. v.

Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2021 INSC 76.

7. He further submits that the appellant company has since changed hands, however, the present appeal has been filed on the basis of an old Board Resolution dated 02.11.2021, which is under challenge by the respondent.

8. He submits that the appellant is misusing the process of the court, inasmuch as on 12.12.2024, the appellant had undertaken before the learned District Judge that it would deposit 100% of the awarded amount, along with interest, and on the basis of the said submission, the enforcement of the Impugned Arbitral Award was stayed. Later, the appellant, claiming financial constraints, did not deposit the said amount and the stay order was modified by the learned District Judge on 04.07.2025, directing the appellant to make the deposit of 75% of the arbitral amount along with updated interest. However, even this amount was not deposited by the appellant, and a new plea of a requisition from the bankers was pleaded. He submits that the learned District Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 34 of the A&C Act.

9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

10. From the above narration of facts, it would be apparent that the appellant was to deposit 75% of