Calcutta High Court
Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Shubhashish Tripathi And Anr on 4 March, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD-2
AP-COM/1090/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISON
TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
VS
SHUBHASHISH TRIPATHI AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : 4th March, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Srijani Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Indrani Majumdar, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
Mr. Souma Subhra Ray, Adv.
Ms. Neelam Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Monalisha Singha, Adv.
. . .for the respondents.
The Court: This is an application for appointment of a learned Arbitrator.
The petitioner is a financial institution. It provided financial assistance to the
respondents to the tune of Rs.56,00,562/-. The loan agreement was executed on
July 14, 2014. Allegedly, the respondents committed series of defaults after
paying 52 instalments.
Accordingly, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 and demanded a sum of Rs.50,14,939/- which was
allegedly due and payable as on May 18, 2019. The petitioner invoked the
arbitration clause by a letter dated September 21, 2024. The arbitration
2
agreement is provided under Clause 12.10 of the loan agreement. It is submitted
that the notice invoking arbitration was delivered to the respondents on
September 27, 2024. As the respondents did not take any step upon receipt of
the notice invoking arbitration, the petitioner was constrained to file this
application. The jurisdiction clause provides that the arbitration shall be in
Kolkata.
Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the respondents are
willing to settle the matter, but the petitioner refused. It is further submitted
that the calculation of the outstanding dues, is erroneous. Further objections
with regard to limitation etc. has also been raised.
The duty of the referral court is to be satisfied as to the existence of the
Arbitration Clause and invocation thereof. In the facts and circumstances, this
Court is satisfied that there is an arbitration clause and notice invoking
arbitration has been issued. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law
and fact. The other objections are also to be raised before the learned Arbitrator.
Under such circumstances, the Court appoints Mr. Nilay Sengupta,
learned Advocate [Mobile No. 8240670224] as the Arbitrator, to arbitrate the
dispute. This order is subject to compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
The learned Arbitrator shall fix his own remuneration as per the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
AP-COM/1090/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)