Bajaj Finance Ltd. vs SATYA NARAIN GUPTA

1 T it le C IS N o .

C a se N o .

1 R eli an ce C o m m erc ia l F in a nc e V s S A RD A R S IN G H 89 6 /2 02 3 8 7 4/2 0 23 2 10 6 7/ 20 23 3 MS JA I RA M FI N VE S T V s RA MC H A R A N SH A R MA 56 0 /2 02 0 5 7 0/2 0 23 4 1 1 /20 2 3 1 0 9/2 0 23 5 1 7 /2 02 3 1 15 /2 0 23 6 FI N O VA C A P IT A L PV T .

LT D .

V s K A IL A S H JI 12 2 /2 02 3 1 2 0/2 0 23 7 21 8 /2 02 3 2 1 4/2 0 23 8 B A ID FI NS E R V LT D .

V s S A N JU D E V I 21 9 /2 02 3 2 1 5/2 0 23 9 B AI D F IN S ER V L T D .

V s A SH O K K U MA WA T 2 0 /2 02 3 2 1 6/2 0 23 1 0 B A ID FI NS E R V LT D .

V s K A IL A S H C H A ND A WA T 2 2 /2 02 3 2 1 8/2 0 23 1 1 B A ID FI NS E R V LT D .

V s G O P AL L A L R A IG A R 2 3 /2 02 3 2 1 9/2 0 23 1 2 2 5 /2 02 3 2 2 1/2 0 23 1 3 2 6 /2 02 3 2 2 2/2 0 23 1 4 2 7 /2 02 3 2 2 3/2 0 23 1 5 S H R I R A M F I NA N C E L TD .

V s PR A TA P S IN G H 28 2 /2 02 3 2 7 5/2 0 23 1 6 28 3 /2 02 3 2 7 6/2 0 23 1 7 28 4 /2 02 3 2 7 7/2 0 23 1 8 SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

V s S A B H I R AH E MA D 28 5 /2 02 3 2 7 8/2 0 23 1 9 SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

V s S A B H I R AH E MA D 28 6 /2 02 3 2 7 9/2 0 23 2 0 SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

V s S A B H I R AH E MA D 28 7 /2 02 3 2 8 0/2 0 23 2 1 SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

V s R A MJI L A L ME N A 28 8 /2 02 3 2 8 1/2 0 23 2 2 I nd u sin d B an k ltd .

Vs V IJ E N DR A S IN G H 29 4 /2 02 3 2 8 7/2 0 23 2 3 In du si nd B a nk l td .

V s SU B H A S H C H AN D 29 7 /2 02 3 2 9 0/2 0 23 2 4 E qu ita s Fi na nc e V s J H A BA R MA L 29 9 /2 02 3 2 9 2/2 0 23 2 5 S K F IN A N C E LT D .

Vs S U B H AS H K U MA R 30 0 /2 02 3 2 9 3/2 0 23 2 6 S K F IN A N C E LT D .

Vs R A MN IWA S K A JL A 30 1 /2 02 3 2 9 4/2 0 23 2 7 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s MO HA MME D A S IF 30 2 /2 02 3 2 9 5/2 0 23 2 8 B a jaj F in an ce L td .

V s R A J SI NG H SE N G A R 30 3 /2 02 3 2 9 6/2 0 23 2 9 B a jaj F in an ce L td .

V s MA N O J KU MA R G U P TA 30 4 /2 02 3 2 9 7/2 0 23 3 0 B a jaj F in an ce L td . ce L td .

V s A G R IM S H A R MA 30 5 /2 02 3 2 9 8/2 0 23 3 1 B a jaj F in an ce L td .

V s S E EMA K A N WA R 30 6 /2 02 3 2 9 9/2 0 23 3 2 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s SU N IL K U MA R 30 7 /2 02 3 3 0 0/2 0 23 3 3 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s SH R E E O M C O R PO R A T IO N 30 8 /2 02 3 3 0 1/2 0 23 3 4 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s SH R E E A DI T YA SA L E S 30 9 /2 02 3 3 0 2/2 0 23 3 5 B a jaj F in an ce L td .

V s S A TY A N A R A IN G U P TA 31 0 /2 02 3 3 0 3/2 0 23 3 6 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s A N K I T JA IN 31 1 /2 02 3 3 0 4/2 0 23 3 7 B a jaj F in an ce L td .

V s R A MA K AN T B H A R D WA J 31 4 /2 02 3 3 0 7/2 0 23 3 8 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s ME N A B O O K H O U SE 31 5 /2 02 3 3 0 8/2 0 23 3 9 B aja j Fi na nc e Lt d.

V s SH A R MA MO T O RS 31 6 /2 02 3 3 0 9/2 0 23 IN T H E C O U R T O F T H E JU D G E C O MME R C IA L C O U R T N O .

1 , J A IP U R ME T R O P O L IT A N -I I, JA IP U R S r.

M/ S LA X MI IN D IA FI N LE A S EC A P P V T .

L T D .

V s S H E EL A D E V I 1 3 6/ 20 2 3 F IN O V A C A P IT A L PV T .

V s S H A MB H U L AL B AI R WA F IN O V A C A P IT A L PV T .

V s B A N WA R I L A L SA I N I B A ID FI NS E R V L TD .

V s SH A R V A N K U MA R ME E N A C h ol am a nd al am I nv e stm e nt a nd F in an ce C o m pa ny L td V s S H Y A M S H A RMA C h ol am a nd al am I nv e stm e nt a nd F in an ce C o m pa ny L td V s K A L P AN A SH A R MA C h ol am a nd al am I nv e stm e nt a nd F in an ce C o m pa ny L td V s R A KE S H S IN G H SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

Vs T E K CH A N D A G A R WA L SH R I R A M F IN A N CE LT D .

Vs S H Y O JI R AM K H AR O L Sr.

No.

Title CIS No.

Case No.

1 Reliance Commercial Finance Vs SARDAR SINGH 896/2023 874/2023 2 1136/2023 1067/2023 3 MS JAIRAM FINVEST Vs RAMCHARAN SHARMA 560/2020 570/2023 4 FINOVA CAPITAL PVT.

LTD.

Vs SHAMBHU LAL BAIRWA 111/2023 109/2023 5 FINOVA CAPITAL PVT.

Vs BANWARI LAL SAINI 117/2023 115/2023 6 FINOVA CAPITAL PVT.

PVT.

Vs KAILASH JI 122/2023 120/2023 7 BAID FINSERV LTD.

Vs SHARVAN KUMAR MEENA 218/2023 214/2023 8 BAID FINSERV LTD.

Vs SANJU DEVI 219/2023 215/2023 9 BAID FINSERV LTD.

Vs ASHOK KUMAWAT 220/2023 216/2023 10 BAID FINSERV LTD.

Vs KAILASH CHANDAWAT 222/2023 218/2023 11 BAID FINSERV LTD.

Vs GOPAL LAL RAIGAR 223/2023 219/2023 12 225/2023 221/2023 13 226/2023 222/2023 14 227/2023 223/2023 15 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs PRATAP SINGH 282/2023 275/2023 16 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs TEKCHAND AGARWAL 283/2023 276/2023 17 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SHYOJI RAM KHAROL 284/2023 277/2023 18 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SABBHIR AHEMAD 285/2023 278/2023 19 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SABBHIR AHEMAD 286/2023 279/2023 20 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SABBHIR AHEMAD 287/2023 280/2023 21 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAMJI LAL MEENA 288/2023 281/2023 22 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs VIJENDRA SINGH 294/2023 287/2023 23 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs SUBHASH CHAND 297/2023 290/2023 24 Equitas Finance Vs JHABAR MAL 299/2023 292/2023 25 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs SUBHASH KUMAR 300/2023 293/2023 26 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAMNIWAS KAJLA 301/2023 294/2023 27 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs MOHAMMED ASIF 302/2023 295/2023 28 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs RAJ SINGH SENGAR 303/2023 296/2023 29 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA 304/2023 297/2023 30 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs AGRIM SHARMA 305/2023 298/2023 31 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SEEMA KANWAR 306/2023 299/2023 32 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SUNIL KUMAR 307/2023 300/2023 33 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SHREE OM CORPORATION 308/2023 301/2023 34 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SHREE ADITYA SALES 309/2023 302/2023 35 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SATYA NARAIN GUPTA 310/2023 303/2023 36 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs ANKIT JAIN 311/2023 304/2023 37 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs RAMAKANT BHARDWAJ 314/2023 307/2023 38 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs MEENA BOOK HOUSE 315/2023 308/2023 39 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SHARMA MOTORS 316/2023 309/2023 40 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs J D DISTRIBUTORS 317/2023 310/2023 41 Bajaj Finance Ltd. nance Ltd.

Vs KAMAL CHHIPA 318/2023 311/2023 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT NO.

1, JAIPUR METROPOLITAN-II, JAIPUR M/S LAXMI INDIA FINLEASECAP PVT.

Vs SHEELA DEVI Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs SHYAM SHARMA Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs KALPANA SHARMA Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs RAKESH SINGH 2 42 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs AALOK GOYAL 319/2023 312/2023 43 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs JHALAK ENTERPRISES 323/2023 316/2023 44 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs RAM SWAROOP SAINI 324/2023 317/2023 45 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs ABHISHEK ENTERPRISES 325/2023 318/2023 46 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs ISHWAR LAKHUWANI 326/2023 319/2023 47 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs DEEWAKAR BIHANI 328/2023 321/2023 48 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs JAGDISH YADAV 401/2023 388/2023 49 402/2023 389/2023 50 412/2023 399/2023 51 INFINITY FINCORP PVT.

Vs SHAKIL KHAN 413/2023 400/2023 52 INFINITY FINCORP PVT.

Vs MAYA DEVI 414/2023 401/2023 53 INFINITY FINCORP PVT.

Vs VIHAN BAKSHI 415/2023 402/2023 54 420/2023 407/2023 55 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs VIJAYPAL 503/2023 489/2023 56 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs MOHD.

SAGIR 504/2023 490/2023 57 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs BRIJ LAL 505/2023 491/2023 58 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs ARVIND KUMAR MEENA 506/2023 492/2023 59 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs Meetha Lal Meena 624/2023 607/2023 60 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs Hari Das 627/2023 610/2023 61 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs KAILASH GURJAR 638/2023 619/2023 62 639/2023 620/2023 63 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs MAHAVEER YADAV 640/2023 621/2023 64 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs UDDALAL GURJAR 641/2023 622/2023 65 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs CHOTURAM MEENA 642/2023 623/2023 66 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs RAJESH GURJAR 643/2023 624/2023 67 881/2023 859/2023 68 883/2023 861/2023 69 887/2023 865/2023 70 888/2023 866/2023 71 935/2023 913/2023 72 1104/2023 1075/2023 73 1327/2023 1327/2023 74 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs MANGALRAM GURJAR 1354/2023 1319/2023 75 SK FINANCE LTD.

NANCE LTD.

Vs HARIRAM BAGARIYA 1356/2023 1321/2023 76 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs KAPTAN 1357/2023 1322/2023 77 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs KRISHAN KUMAR 1358/2023 1323/2023 78 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs ASHWANI KUMAR BAKOLIYA 1359/2023 1324/2023 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs KAILASH CHAND BHADALA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs RAM AVTAR MEENA TATA MOTORS FINANCE SOLUTIONS LTD.

Vs SARDAR MAL MANDOLIYA KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs BABULAL DHANKAR M/S LAXMI INDIA FINLEASECAP PVT.

Vs VIDHA DEVI M/S LAXMI INDIA FINLEASECAP PVT.

Vs GEETA DEVI M/S LAXMI INDIA FINLEASECAP PVT.

Vs MADAN LAL KUMAWAT M/S LAXMI INDIA FINLEASECAP PVT.

Vs SHARVAN LAL VERMA KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs RAVI PRAKASH KATRI M/S JAIRAJ FINVEST PVT.

Vs MURARI LAL SHARMA M/S NEXT EDUCATION INDIA PVT.

Vs TAJ GLOBLE ACADEMY 3 79 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs KAMAL KISHOR MEENA 1360/2023 1325/2023 80 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs BABLU SWAMI 1361/2023 1326/2023 81 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs VISHNU KUMAR 1362/2023 1327/2023 82 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAMSHARAN SHARMA 1363/2023 1328/2023 83 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs AJAY KUMAR GANGWAL 1364/2023 1329/2023 84 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs JAGDISH JI 1365/2023 1330/2023 85 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs SANTOSH DEVI 1366/2023 1331/2023 86 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs PREM DEVI 1367/2023 1332/2023 87 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs SIKANDRA MOHAMMAD 1368/2023 1333/2023 88 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs SHANKAR CHAUDHARY 1369/2023 1334/2023 89 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs VEER SINGH PANWAR 1370/2023 1335/2023 90 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs MADAN LAL GURJAR 1371/2023 1336/2023 91 1372/2023 1337/2023 92 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs JAVED 1373/2023 1338/2023 93 1374/2023 1339/2023 94 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs JAIRAM GURJAR 1375/2023 1340/2023 95 1376/2023 1341/2023 96 1377/2023 1342/2023 97 1378/2023 1343/2023 98 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs SANJAY KUMAR 1379/2023 1344/2023 99 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs AKHTAR ALI 1380/2023 1345/2023 100 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Ltd. e Co.

Vs ISLAM 1381/2023 1346/2023 101 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs ABDUL MAJID 1382/2023 1347/2023 102 1383/2023 1348/2023 103 1384/2023 1349/2023 104 1385/2023 1350/2023 105 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs MAHESH KUMAR 1386/2023 1351/2023 106 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs JAGDISH 1388/2023 1353/2023 107 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs FARUKH KHAN 1390/2023 1355/2023 108 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs JHHABARMAL BIJARNIYA 1391/2023 1356/2023 109 Sundaram Finance Ltd.

Vs MUKESH KUMAR MEENA 1406/2023 1371/2023 110 ADANI CAPITAL PVT.

Vs Bajrang Singh 1510/2023 1472/2023 111 ADANI CAPITAL PVT.

Vs Devki Nandan Sharma 1511/2023 1473/2023 112 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

Vs Ashok Kumar Moga 1512/2023 1474/2023 113 1536/2023 1496/2023 114 1537/2023 1497/2023 115 1543/2023 1503/2023 116 1544/2023 1504/2023 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs CHHAJURAM SHARMA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs KASHIRAM MEENA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs RAMPHOOL MEENA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs SITARAM SHARMA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs RAMESH KUMAR TANEJA JUMBO FINVEST INDIA LTD.

Vs RAM CHANDRA MANKAS Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs dhanesh kumar chandeliya Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs DEVENDRA SINGH Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs JITENDRA AGARWAL IMPRESSIVE HEIGHTS FINSTOCK LTD.

Vs KEDARNATH MEENA SBI Cards And Payment Services pvt. ltd.

Vs RAJENDRA KATARIYA 4 117 Kogta Financial (india) Ltd Vs SULTAN SINGH GURJAR 1548/2023 1508/2023 118 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAMBABU SHARMA 1718/2023 1718/2023 119 SK FINANCE LTD.

Vs OMPRAKASH SHARMA 1719/2023 1677/2023 120 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs RAJVEER SINGH 1720/2023 1678/2023 121 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs BHAGWAN SHAI MEENA 1721/2023 1679/2023 122 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs KAMLESH MEENA 1722/2023 1680/2023 123 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs RAMDAYAL MEENA 1723/2023 1681/2023 124 Indusind Bank ltd.

Bank ltd.

Vs RAMKESH MEENA 1724/2023 1682/2023 125 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs SURESH KUMAR GURJAR 1725/2023 1683/2023 126 Indusind Bank ltd.

Vs RAMKHILADI GURJAR 1726/2023 1684/2023 127 1727/2023 1685/2023 128 1728/2023 1686/2023 129 1729/2023 1687/2023 130 1730/2023 1688/2023 131 Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Vs SUNIL KUMAR 1731/2023 1689/2023 132 1732/2023 1690/2023 133 1733/2023 1691/2023 134 Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Vs RAJESH SHARMA 1734/2023 1692/2023 135 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs ANKUR BADJATYA 1736/2023 1694/2023 136 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs MOHAN LAL JAT 1737/2023 1695/2023 137 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs SYBARITIC LINEN 1738/2023 1696/2023 138 1739/2023 1697/2023 139 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs RAJKUMAR YADAV 1740/2023 1698/2023 140 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs SUBHASH KULWAL 1741/2023 1699/2023 141 1742/2023 1700/2023 142 1743/2023 1701/2023 143 1744/2023 1702/2023 144 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs SAGAR MAL PUNEYA 1745/2023 1703/2023 145 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs SUSHMA VYAS 1746/2023 1704/2023 146 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs RAKESH SHARMA 1747/2023 1705/2023 147 1748/2023 1706/2023 148 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs NAJIR AHAMAD 1749/2023 1707/2023 149 SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs DEEPA BHOJWANI 1750/2023 1708/2023 150 1751/2023 1709/2023 151 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs ANTRAM 1756/2023 1711/2023 152 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs MANOJ 1757/2023 1712/2023 153 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs DHARMPAL SINGH 1758/2023 1713/2023 154 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs MOHAN KUMAR SHARMA 1759/2023 1714/2023 155 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs BABULAL SAINI 1760/2023 1715/2023 156 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs NIRANJAN SAINI 1761/2023 1716/2023 157 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs KAILASH CHAND SWAMI 1762/2023 1717/2023 Kogta Financial (india) Ltd Vs JITENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Vs BALA WHEELS AND EVENTS PVT.

Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Vs SHREE KARANI CONSTRUCTION CO.

Vs SANJAY KUMAR PUNGALIYA Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Prime ltd.

Vs SHRI KRISHNA SALES CORPORATION Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd.

Vs FUNDAN BUILD ESTATE PVT.

SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs JASVEER SINGH SARDAR SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs CHANDRA ELECTRONIC APPLIANCES PVT.

LTD SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs KEDAR PRASAD SHARMA SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs PRIYADARSHAN SHARMA SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs SHAMIM AHAMAD KHAN SMFG INDIA CREDIT CO.

Vs PUSHKAR LAL SHARMA 5 158 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SOHANLAL GURJAR 1763/2023 1718/2023 159 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs CHAJURAM YADAV 1764/2023 1719/2023 160 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs INDRA MEENA 1765/2023 1720/2023 161 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAJPAL CHAUDHARY 1766/2023 1721/2023 162 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs HAWASINGH SHEKHAWAT 1767/2023 1722/2023 163 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs PAWAN SINGH 1399/2023 1364/2023 164 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs OMPRAKASH KHARINTA 1400/2023 1365/2023 165 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs MAHIPAL JAKHDE 1401/2023 1366/2023 166 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs HEMRAJ SHARMA 1402/2023 1367/2023 167 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SHIV BHAGWAN MAMOD 1403/2023 1368/2023 168 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs GIGRAJ 1404/2023 1369/2023 169 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SHISHPAL SINGH 1405/2023 1370/2023 170 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs RAVI MAVALIYAS 431/2023 418/2023 171 432/2023 419/2023 172 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs REKHA SHARMA 433/2023 420/2023 173 434/2023 421/2023 174 435/2023 422/2023 175 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs DINESH JANGID 436/2023 423/2023 176 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs hari ram yadav 419/2023 406/2023 177 SBFC Finance Lrd VS KHEM SINGH 843/2023 821/2023 178 SBFC Finance Lrd VS GANESHAM COLLECTION 844/2023 822/2023 179 SBFC Finance Lrd VS ROSHAN BALDWA 841/2023 819/2023 180 SBFC Finance Lrd VS SUMAN SONI 840/2023 818/2023 181 SBFC Finance Lrd VS HARISH PAREWA 842/2023 820/2023 182 789/2023 769/2023 183 HDFC BANK LTD VS SHAKEEL KHAN 785/2023 765/2023 184 HDFC BANK LTD VSKIDS CONVENT 788/2023 768/2023 185 HDFC BANK LTD VS RAHUL KUSHWAH 786/2023 766/2023 186 HD 023 186 HDFC BANK LTD VS MADHAV TRADERS 787/2023 767/2023 187 SHRI RAN TRANSPORT FINANCE VS YASH PAL JINWAL 418/2023 405/2023 188 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS RASHIM 365/2023 355/2023 189 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS PARVATI KANWAR 366/2023 356/2023 190 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS SHAHJAAD KHAN 367/2023 357/2023 191 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS SHAKUNTLA 369/2023 359/2023 192 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS GIRAAJ SONI 368/2023 358/2023 193 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS RAVINDRA 370/2023 360/2023 194 MAHINDRA RURAL HOUSING VS MAINA KANWAR 364/2023 354/2023 195 SHRI RAM TRANSPORT VS SURESH KUMAR 1395/2023 1360/2023 196 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs HIRA LAL MEENA 416/2023 403/2023 197 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs PRAHLAAD GOKHI 1394/2023 1359/2023 198 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs RAM KARAN GURJAR 1396/2023 1361/2023 199 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs GIRDHARI LAL 1393/2023 1358/2023 200 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs MAHAVEER SINGH 1397/2023 1362/2023 201 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs GIGRAAAJ 1398/2023 1363/2023 202 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs JAWAHAR LAL 1392/2023 1357/2023 203 Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs SHARWAN SINGH 1387/2023 1352/2023 204 SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.

Vs SOHAN SINGH 1389/2023 1354/2023 205 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs GURDAYAL GURJAR 312/2023 305/2023 206 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs SHREE SHYAM ENTERPRISES 313/2023 306/2023 207 Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs RAJESH KUMAR GODHA 327/2023 320/2023 208 329/2023 322/2023 209 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs FAILI RAM MEENA 438/2023 424/2023 210 Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd Vs SURYA PRATAP SHARMA 439/2023 425/2023 211 440/2023 426/2023 212 990/2023 963/2023 BEST CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.

Vs VIKRAM SINGH BHASKAR Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs NATHU LAL MEENA Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs ASHA DEVI KHATIK HDFC BANK LTD VS VIVEK SARASWATI VIDHYA MANDIR Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Vs PRAVEEN KUMAR HARSHIT KUMAR Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.

Vs SOHAN LAL VAISHAV Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd Vs SANJAY YADAV 6 Present Advocates: 1. ocates: 1.

Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Shri Sandeep Bansiwal, Shri KV Singh, Mrs.

Dimple Sharma, Shri Javed Ahmed, Shri Murad Baig, Shri Ashwani Sharma, Shri Neeraj Sharma, Shri Rakesh Ajmera, Shri Zobin Methew, Shri Akash Agarwal, Shri Mohit Gupta, Shri Shashank Agarwal, Shri Vikas Singh Shekhawat, Shri Akshat Diwan, Shri Ram Singh Bhati, Shri Kulvardhan Singh, Shri Vikram Singh, Shri Sunil Dutt Sharma, Shri R.K Yadav, Shri Anil Gupta, Shri Ravi Kumar, Shri Rajpal Dhankhar, Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Mohd.

Naved, Shri Avinash kumbhaj, Shri Ram Singh Verma, Shri Javed Ahmed, Shri Arnav Yadav, Shri Vikram Singh Jadaun, Shri Indra Pal Singh Mehla, Shri Sohan Lal Kumhar, Shri Ram Singh Bhati, Shri Kulvardhan Singh Bhati advocates for the applicants.

2.

Ms.

Rashmi Jain, advocate for the respondent. :ORDER: DATED: 02.09.2023 1.

These above applications are filed by different applicants for enforcement of arbitral award under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Herein after called as Act 1996).

All these applications pertaining to arbitral award in which the arbitrator were unilaterally appointed by the applicants.

The seminal issue involved in these applications is; "Whether the award, passed by an arbitrator who was de jure ineligible due to his appointment in contravention of section 12(5) of the Act, 1996 can be enforced ?" 3.

The learned counsels appearing for the applicants submitted as under; i) Executing Court can not go behind the decree. ii)Objection regarding the unilateral appointment can be decided in an application under section 34 of the Act, 1996 and not in the execution application. iii) After three months of the passing of award, it attain finality as it can not be challenged in section 34 of the Act, 1996. iv) The judgment debtor did not respond to notice under section 21 and thereafter did not appear before the arbitrator, so he has waive his right under section 4 of the Act, 1996.

Act, 1996. v) Both the parties signed the agreement and both are bound by the agreement in which, the right is given to the company to appoint arbitrator in case of dispute arises. vi) In some of the applications notice were issued, now they cannot be considered this stage. vi) The judgment debtor did not challenge the proceeding under section 13 or under section 34 of the Act, so, the waiver applies. vii) Court has no power to look into the legality of the award at this stage.

7 4.

Section 12 of Act 1996 provides; "12.

Grounds for challenge. (1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances:- (a) such as the existence either direct or indirect, of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; and (b) which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular his ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months, (2) An arbitrator, from the time of his appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall, without delay, disclose to the parties in writing any circumstances referred to in sub-section (1) unless they have already been informed of them by him. (3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if:- (a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; or (b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties. (4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made. been made. (5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator: Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing." 5.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting section 12(5) of Act, 1996, held in, "Voestalpine Schienen GmbH Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2017) 4 SCC 665," that, "20.

Independence and impartiality of the arbitrator are the hallmarks of any arbitration proceedings.

Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which applied to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.

It is for this reason that notwithstanding the fact that relationship between the parties to the arbitration and the arbitrators themselves are contractual in nature and the source of an arbitrator's appointment is deduced from the agreement entered into between the parties, notwithstanding the same non-independence and non-impartiality of such arbitrator (though contractually agreed upon) would render him ineligible to conduct the arbitration.

The genesis behind this rational is that even when an arbitrator is appointed in 8 terms of contract and by the parties to the contract, he is independent of the parties.

Functions and duties require him to rise above the partisan interest of the parties and not to act in, or so as to further, the particular interest of either parties.

After all, the arbitrator has adjudicatory role to perform and, therefore, he must be independent of parties as well as impartial." 6.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Divison) Vs GAIL (India) Ltd. (Formerly Gas Authority of India Ltd.), Civil Appeal No.

11127 of 2017," held that, "13. that, "13.

After the 2016 Amendment Act, a dichotomy is made by the Act between persons who become "ineligible" to be appointed as arbitrators, and persons about whom justifiable doubts exist as to their independence or impartiality.

Since ineligibility goes to the root of the appointment, section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule makes it clear that if the arbitrator falls in any one of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule, he becomes "ineligible" to act as arbitrator.

Once the becomes ineligible, it is clear that, under section 14(1)(a), he then becomes de jure uncable to perform his functions inas much as, in law, he is regarded as "ineligible".

In order to determine whether an arbitrator is de jure unable to perform his functions, it is not necessary to go to the Arbitral Tribunal under section 13.

Since such a person would lack inherent jurisdiction to proceed any further, an application may be filed under section 14(2) to the Court to decide on the termination of his/her mandate on this ground." 7.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in, "TRF ltd.

Vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., Civil Appeal No.

5306 of 2017," held that, "57.

In such a context, the fulcrum of the controversy would be, can an ineligible arbitrator, like the Managing Director, nominate an arbitrator, who may be otherwise eligible and a respectable person.

As stated earlier, we are neither concerned with the objectivity nor the individual respectability.

We are only concerned with the authority or the power of the Managing Director.

By our analysis, we are obligated to arrive at the conclusion that once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator.

The arbitrator becomes ineligible as per prescription contained in Section 12(5) of the Act.

It is inconceivable in law that person who is statutorily ineligible can nominate a person.

Needless to say, once the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse. collapse.

One cannot have a building without the plinth.

Or to put it differently, once the identity of the Managing Director as the sole arbitrator is lost, the power to nominate someone else as an arbitrator is obliterated.

Therefore, the view expressed by the High Court is not sustainable and we say so." 9 8.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in, "Perkins eastman Architects DPC and Another Vs HSCC (India) Ltd., Arbitration Application No.

32 of 2019," held that,' "19.

It was thus held that as the Managing Director became ineligible by operation of law to act as an arbitrator, he could not nominate another person to act as an arbitrator and that once the identity of the Managing Director as the sole arbitrator was lost, the power to nominate someone else as an arbitrator was also obliterated.

The relevant Clause in said case had nominated the Managing Director himself to be the sole arbitrator and also empowered said Managing Director to nominate another person to act as an arbitrator.

The Managing Director thus had two capacities under said Clause, the first as an arbitrator and the second as an appointing authority.

In the present case we are concerned with only one capacity of the Chairman and Managing birector and that is as an appointing authority.

20.

We thus have two categories of cases.

The first, similar to the one dealt with in TRE Limited where the Managing Director himself is named as an arbitrator with an additional power to appoint any other person as an arbitrator.

In the second category, the Managing Director is not to act as an arbitrator himself but is empowered or authorised to appoint any other person of his choice or discretion as an arbitrator.

If, In the first category of cases, the Managing Director was found incompetent, it was because of the interest that he would be said to be having in the outcome or result of the dispute. e dispute.

The element of invalidity would thus be directly relatable to and arise from the interest that he would be having in such outcome or decision.

If that be the test, similar invalidity would always arise and spring even in the second category of cases.

If the interest that he has in the outcome of the dispute, is taken to be the basis for the possibility of bias, it will always be present irrespective of whether the matter stands under the first or second category of cases we are conscious that if such deduction is drawn from the decision of this Court in TRF Limited, all cases having clauses similar to that with which we are presently concerned, a party to the agreement would be disentitled to make any appointment of an Arbitrator on its own, and it would always be available to argue that a party or an official or an authority having interest in the dispute would be disentitled to make appointment of an Arbitrator." 9.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in, "Bharat Broadband Network Ltd.

Vs United Telecom Ltd., Civil Appeal No.

3972 of 2019", held that, "15.

Section 12(5), on the other hand, is a new provision which relates to the de jure inability of an arbitrator to act as such.

Under this provision, any prior agreement to the contrary is wiped out by the non- obstante clause in Section 12(5) the moment any person whose relationship with the parties or the counsel or the subject matter of the dispate falls under the Seventh Schedule.

The sub-section then declares 10 that such person shall be "ineligible" to be appointed as arbitrator.

The only way in which this ineligibility can be removed is by the provise, which again is a special provision which states that parties may, sabsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of Section 12(5) by an express agreement in writing. n writing.

What is clear, therefore, is that where, under any agreement between the parties, a person falls within any of the categories set out in the Seventh Schedule, he is, as a matter of law, ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

The only way in which this ineligibility can be removed, again, in law, is that parties may after disputes have arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an "express agreement in writing.

Obviously, the "express agreement in writing" has reference to a penon who is interdicted by the Seventh Schedule, but who is stated by parties (after the disputes have arisen between them) to be a person in when they have faith notwithstanding the fact that such person is interdicted by the Seventh Schedule.

17.

The scheme of Sections 12, 13, and 14, therefore, is that where an arbitrator makes a disclosure in writing which is likely to give justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, the appointment of such arbitrator may be challenged under Sections 12(1) to 12(4) read with Section 13.

However, where such person becomes "ineligible" to be appointed as an arbitrator, there is no question of challenge to such arbitrator, before such arbitrator.

In such a case, i.e., a case which falls under Section 12(5), Section 14(1)(a) of the Act gets attracted inasmuch as the arbitrator becomes, as a matter of law (i.e., de jure), unable to perform his functions under Section 12(5), being ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

This being so, his mandate automatically terminates, and he shall then be substituted by another arbitrator under Section 14(1) itself.

It is only if a controversy occurs concerning whether he has become de jure unable to perform his functions as such, that a party has to apply to the Court to decide on the termination of the mandate, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

Thus, in all Section 12(5) cases, there is no challenge procedure to be availed of. vailed of.

If an arbitrator continues as such, being de jure unable to perform his functions, as he falls within any of the categories mentioned in Section 12(5), read with the Seventh Schedule, a party may apply to the Court, which will then decide on whether his mandate has terminated.

Questions which may typically arise under Section 14 may be as to whether such person falls within any of the categories mentioned in the Seventh Schedule, or whether there is a waiver as provided in the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act.

As a matter of law, it is important to note that the proviso to Section 12(5) must be contrasted with Section 4 of the Act.

Section 4 deals with cases of deemed waiver by conduct; whereas the proviso to Section 12(5) deals 11 with waiver by express agreement in writing between the parties only if made subsequent to disputes having arisen between them." 10.It is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by a company/Managing Director is in contravention of section 12(5) and so ineligible and due to that ineligibility, he becomes de jure ineligibile to be arbitrator.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India widen the scope and held that where the arbitrator became de jure ineligible his mandate shall be terminated under section 14(1)(a) of the Act, 1996.

11.Now, we examine the issue set out at the outset, whether an arbitrator who was appointed as an arbitrator in contravention of section 12(5) of the Act, 1996, can award passed by such an arbitrator be enforced under section 36 ?

12.Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while dealing an application under section 36 in "Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Vs Amrapali enterprises and Anr., EC 122 of 2022" held that, "15.

I find myself in complete concurrence with the aforesaid judgments, and in my view, the impugned award is unsustainable and non-est in the eyes of law. es of law.

It is a settled principle of law that compliance with Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII is sine qua non for any arbitral reference to gain recognition and validity before the Courts.

In the present facts in hand, an arbitral reference which itself began with an illegal act has vitiated the entire arbitral proceedings from its inception and the same cannot be validated at any later stage.

Thus, it would be a logical inference to consider the aforesaid arbitral proceedings as void ab initio.

16.

In my view, the impugned award, which was passed by a dejure ineligible arbitrator, suffers from a permanent and indelible mark of bias and prejudice which cannot be washed away at any stage including the execution proceedings.

Infact, as the arbitrator was dejure ineligible to perform his functions and therefore lacked inherent jurisdiction or competence to adjudicate the disputes in hand, the impugned award cannot be accorded the privileged status of an award.

In light of the above findings, it is palpably clear that an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator will not survive the Section 34 challenge.

However, the arbitration application before me is not under Section 34 but rather an execution petition under Section 36.

There is no denying the fact that the Act is a complete code in itself and at the same time, it is equally true that Section 36 provides no scope of adverse interference with an arbitral award dept executing it as a decree of the court.

While Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC governs the challenge to a court decree at the execution stage there is no such similar provision provided in the Act.

However, at this juncture it would be relevant to 12 examine the jurisprudence with respect to decrees passed by bodies lacking inherent jurisdiction.

18. ction.

18.

The Apex Court in Sunder Dass -vs- Ram Prakash reported in 1977 AIR 1201 had stated that decrees passed by bodies lacking inherent jurisdiction are unenforceable and it would be as if no decree existed at all.

P.N.

Bhagwati, J., in his inimitable style had examined and penned down the following: "3.

Now, the law is well settled that an executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness.

But there is one exception to this general rule and that is that where the decree sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction in the court passing it, its invalidity can be set up in an execution proceeding.

Where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the competence of the court to try the case and a decree which is a nullity is void and can be declared to be void by any court in which it is presented.

Its nullity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon and even at the stage of execution or even in collateral proceedings.

The executing court can, therefore, entertain an objection that the decree is a nullity and can refuse to execute the decree.

By doing so, the executing court would not incur the reproach that it is going behind the decree, because the decree being null and void, there would really be no decree at all.

Vide Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340, (1955) 1 SCR 117 and Seth Hiralal Patni Vs Sri Kali Nath (AIR 1962 SC 199: (1962) 2 SCR 747).

It is, therefore, obvious that in the present case, it was competent to the executing court to examine whether the decree for eviction was a nullity on the ground that the civil court had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the decree for eviction was passed.

If the decree for eviction was a nullity, the executing court could declare it to be such and decline to execute it against the respondent. espondent." Similar pronouncements were made in 'Hiralal Moolchand Doshi -vs- Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas' reported in (1993) 2 SCC 458 (Coram: Yogeshwar Dayal, J.J and Sushil Kumar Mehta -us- Gobind Ram Bohra, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 193 [Coram: K Ramaswamy, J].

19.

While Section 47 of the CPC is not directly applicable, the jurisprudence referred to above cannot be ignored.

Similar principles have to be applied in cases of awards passed by arbitral tribunals lacking inherent jurisdiction.

This court cannot shut its eyes to the grave irregularity that will occur if it does not interfere.

As outlined in various afore-stated judicial pronouncements, an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator cannot be considered as an award under the provisions of the Act and consequently, they have to be regarded as non est in the eyes of law.

We have a peculiar situation.

13 The jurisprudence and statute (Section 12[5] read with Schedule VII) ascertains selected arbitrators to inherently lack jurisdiction.

But, such jurisdiction can be sanctified/legalised, if express waiver is made by a written agreement, as statutorily carved out owing to considerations of party autonomy.

Possibility of waiver was granted as a concession to party autonomy in arbitration law.

But that does not mean that the jurisdiction is not inherently lacking before such express waiver is made.

As a flip side to this, such waivers should be very strictly construed in terms of its explicitness.

In view of the above, the present execution petition has no legs to stand on for the reasons that the award sought to be enforced is not a legal decree.

The decree does not exist.

Therefore, not merely is it non- executable, the parties would be free to re-agitate the matter before a new arbitral tribunal.

However, the parties have given consent in the present matter." 13.Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in, "Divisional Manager, H.P.

State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. ation Ltd.

Vs Prem Lal, CMPMO No.

58 of 2023," in which the petition under section 36 of the Act, 1996 has been dismissed by the District Judge on the ground that the award passed by the arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed in contravention of Section 12(5) of the Act, 1996.

Learned District Judge held that the arbitral award was held as unexecutable.

The petitioners assail that order before Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Hon'ble High Court has relied upon 'TRF Ltd. (Supra), Bharat Broadband (Supra), Perkins eastman (supra), and held that arbitration proceedings conducted by arbitrator are non est and award passed by such arbitrator were void.

The award were not enforceable.

The Hon'ble High Court held that the District Judge did not committed any error in dismissing the execution application filed by the petitioners seeking enforcement of void award and all the petitions were dismissed by Hon'ble Court.

14.Hon'ble Delhi High Court Division Bench in, "Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Vs Narendra Kumar Prajapat, 2023 Latest Caselaw 709 del," in which similar point has been decided by the commercial court at Delhi, wherein the applications filed by the applicant for enforcement of ex-parte award was dismissed with cost of Rs.

25000/-.

Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court relying upon 'TRF Ltd. (supra), Perkins Eastman (Supra), and HRD Corporation (supra) and held that, "This court finds no infirmity with the aforesaid view.

A person who is ineligible to act an arbitrator, lacks the inherent jurisdiction to render an arbitral award under the A& C Act.

It is trite law that a decision, by any authority, which lacks inherent jurisdiction to make such a decision, cannot be considered as valid.

Thus, clearly, such an impugned award cannot be enforced." 14 15.The perusal of the awards shows a sorry state of affairs as to how learned arbitrator acted and conducted the arbitration proceedings and subsequently passed the award. the award.

The 5th Schedule provides the grounds which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator, ground at serial no.

22 provides, "The arbitrator has within the past three years been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occassions by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties." 16.Further at serial no.

29, it is provided, "The arbitrator has within the past three years received more than three appointments by the same counsel or the same law firm." 17.The perusal of present applications shows that approximately none of the arbitrator adhere to the provisions provided under 5th Schedule.

By this order only 212 applications are disposed off out of this small numbers following examples (It deemed it appropriate not to disclose the identity of arbitrator, who had conducted arbitral proceedings in such way) shows that how the arbitrator unilaterally appointed by a particular company breached the provisions of the law; 1.

Shri Ram Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed different sole arbitrator, out of which, one sole arbitrator passed 12 awards on 09.12.2022, 5 awards on 25.02.2019, 3 awards on 11.09.2019, 2 awards on 21.02.2023 for Shri Ram Finance Ltd. against various respondents.

Shri Ram Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator who passed 10 awards on 25.02.2023, 6 awards on 23.12.2021, 5 awards on 30.06.2021, 4 awards on 17.09.2022, 2 awards on 01.09.2022 for Shri Ram Finance Ltd. against different respondents.

Shri Ram Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator who passed 5 awards on 15.02.2022 for 'Shri Ram Finance Ltd. against different respondents.

The same sole arbitrator was also unilaterally appointed by Hinduja Layland Finance Ltd and on 15.02.2022, he passed 2 awards for Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. against different respondent.

Not only this the same arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by Infinity Fincorp Pvt.

Ltd. and that sole arbitrator also on 15. lso on 15.02.2022 passed 3 awards for Infinity fincorp Pvt.

Ltd. against different respondents.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator at Delhi, who passed 6 awards on 06.10.2022 for Kotak Mahindra against different respondents.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator who passed 2 awards on 26.05.2022 against different respondents.

3.

SK Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator who passed 2 awards on 17.08.2022, 2 awards on 24.08.2022.

The same arbitrator also passed 4 awards on 24.11.2022 against different respondents.

15 SK finance also unilaterally appoint another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 19.01.2023 for SK Finance against different respondents.

4.

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 11.07.2022 against different respondents.

5.

Laxmi India Finlease Cap Pvt.

Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 08.08.2022 against different respondents.

6.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 6 awards on 05.04.2021 against different respondents.

The same arbitrator was also unilaterally appointed by SBFC Finance Ltd. and he passed 4 award on 05.01.2023 for SBFC against different respondents.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 29.01.2022 against different respondents.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 31.11.2022 against different respondents.

Bajaj Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 23.04.2022 against different respondents.

7.

Fulletron Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 6 awards on 16.01.2023 and 2 awards on 30.01.2023.

Fulletron Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 20.01.2023 .

Fulletron Finance Ltd. nance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 30.07.2021.

Fulletron Finance Ltd. also unilaterally appointed another sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 20.10.2022.

8.

Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 7 awards on 20.10.2022 against different respondents.

9.

HDFC Bank Ltd. unilaterally appointed a sole arbitrator, who passed 2 awards on 28.05.2022.

10.

Baid Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator who passed 3 awards on 01.10.2021 and 2 awards on 08.12.2021.

18.These are few of the examples and that too from very short pool of only 212 applications.

The situation is bad if we consider the fact that all the arbitrator singularily passed hundreads of the awards in a year for the same financial institution and that finance institution/applicant unilaterally appoint the same arbitrator.

These applicants, infact made a mockery of justice and particulary of arbitration proceedings.

They by their act and conduct frustrate the object of the Act, 1996.

The Act, 1996 was amended on 23.10.2015 and Section 12(5) was inserted and dispite several authoritative pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High Court, these financial institution/applicant 16 have acted in total disregard of the law.

They are hell bent to violate the law.

They are infact exploit their dominate position.

19.The objections of learned counsels of the applicants that, this court cannot go behind the award has no substance.

As this question is answered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in "Cholamandalam (Supra)", Hon'ble Himachal High Court in 'Prem Lal (Supra)' and by the Division Bench in 'Kotak Mahindra (Supra)'.

20.The other submissions of waiver as provided under section 4 of the Act and the provisions of section 7 of the Act, these are all dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'TRF' Supra, Bharat Broadband (Supra), Perkins (Supra). s (Supra).

Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Man Industries (India) Ltd.

Vs IOCL, OMP (Comm.) 252/2018 held that even participation by the borrower in such arbitral proceeding, where the sole arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, the waiver as provided under section 4 and 7 of the Act, 1996 did not apply.

21.Learned Counsel Shri Anil Gupta also submitted that court cannot take recourse to section 47 CPC and if court want to proceed under section 47 CPC, the court had to frame issue and take evidence.

The argument of framing of issue under section 47 CPC is also devoid of any merit as no issue which is likely to be framed has been suggested by any of the counsels.

Most importantly, the question of framing issue does not arise at all after the Hon'ble Supreme Cout of India, relying upon Section 12(5) of the Act, 1996 declare the award passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator as non-est.

The learned counsel also submitted that in one case receiver has been appointed by court and pray that application be separated from other application.

The submission of the learned counsel is also not tenable as the award in question was passed by a unilateral appointed arbitrator and so his ineligibility goes to the root of the matter and the award passed by him is non-est.

22.The argument of the learned counsel of the applicant that this court in execution cannot go into the legality of the award after passing of three months as provided under section 34(3) of the Act, 1996, as these awards attain finality.

It must be stated here that the executing court certainly go into the question of executability or non-executability of the award.

An award is not final in this regard.

An award has to pass the rigour of executability then only it is to be enforced.

Here, as already stated above these awards were passed by the arbitrator who were de jure ineligible and so are non-est in eyes of law and non executable.

23. table.

23.

So, looking into the position of law, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Hon'ble High Courts, the issue framed at the outset is decided against the applicants and the award in all the above applications are declared as non-executable.

Hence the above applications are dismissed.

17 ORDER 24.

As per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Courts, as discussed above, the above awards passed by the arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the applicant are non- executable.

Hence, the above applications are dismissed. (Dinesh Tyagi) Judge, Commercial Court No.

01, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.

25.

The order is signed, sealed and pronounced in open Court, on this day of September 02, 2023. (Dinesh Tyagi) Judge, Commercial Court No.

DINESH TYAGI "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document." 2023.09.04 13:06:29 +0530 DINESH TYAGI "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document." 2023.09.04 13:06:36 +0530