Delhi High Court – Orders
M/S Vistrat Real Estate Private Limited vs Tata Steel Limited & Ors on 21 April, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~57 to 61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025
M/S VISTRAT REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Akshay and Ms. K. Hema,
Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Ms. Saravna
Vasanta, Mr. Udaibir Kocchar and Ms.
Tulna Rampal, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Aman Singh
and Ms. Maria Mary Sunil, Advocates
for R-5.
58
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2025
NEERAJ SINGAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Akshay and Ms. K. Hema,
Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Ms. Saravna
Vasanta, Mr. Udaibir Kocchar and Ms.
Tulna Rampal, Advocates for R-1.
59
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2025
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:45
NEERAJ SINGAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Akshay and Ms. K. Hema,
Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Ms. Saravna
Vasanta, Mr. Udaibir Kocchar and Ms.
Tulna Rampal, Advocates for R-1.
60
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2025
ROHIT SINHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Akshay and Ms. K. Hema,
Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Ms. Saravna
Vasanta, Mr. Udaibir Kocchar and Ms.
Tulna Rampal, Advocates for R-1.
61
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2025
ROHIT SINHA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Akshay and Ms. K. Hema,
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:45
Advocates.
versus
TATA STEEL LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arvind Thapliyal, Mr.
Siddharth Pandey, Ms. Saravna
Vasanta, Mr. Udaibir Kocchar and Ms.
Tulna Rampal, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER
% 21.04.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 22943/2025 (for exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025
CM APPL. 22948/2025 (for exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2025
CM APPL. 22950/2025 (for exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2025
CM APPL. 22957/2025 (for exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2025
CM APPL. 22959/2025 (for exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & CM APPL. 22942/2025 (for stay)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2025 & CM APPL. 22947/2025 (for stay)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2025 & CM APPL. 22949/2025 (for stay)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2025 & CM APPL. 22956/2025 (for stay)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 64/2025 & CM APPL. 22958/2025 (for stay)
3. These are five appeals filed under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, read with Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. Vide the present appeals, the Appellants are challenging the following
two orders passed by the ld. Single Judge:
● Order dated 10th February, 2025 passed in CS (COMM) 634/2024
titled Angul Energy Limited v. Vistrat Real Estate Private Limited &FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:46
Ors. challenged in FAO(OS)(COMM) 60/2025, FAO(OS)(COMM)
61/2025 & FAO(OS)(COMM) 63/2025 ;
● Order dated 11th February, 2025 passed in CS (COMM) 911/2023
titled Tata Steel Limited v. Vistrat Real Estate Private Limited & Ors.
challenged in FAO(OS)(COMM) 62/2025 and FAO(OS) (COMM)
64/2025.
4. By the said orders dated 10th February, 2025 and 11th February, 2025
(hereinafter, ‘the Impugned Orders’), the ld. Single Judge, in exercise of
powers under Section 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, referred the parties
to arbitration and had also appointed a Sole Arbitrator.
5. Order dated 10th February, 2025 is set out as under :
” CS(COMM) 634/2024
1. Summons have not been issued in this matter.
2. Senior Counsel for the plaintiff states that, without prejudice to
their objection that the Arbitration Clause in the Lease Agreement
does not cover the disputes that arose in the Memorandum of
Security Deposit, basis which the suit was filed for recovery of
about approximately Rs.20 Crores plus interest, they are
agreeable to the matter being referred to the Arbitration by this
Court under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“CPC‘).
3. Counsel for defendant had already filed an application under
Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”)
and, therefore, per se do not have objection that the disputes be
referred to Arbitration.
4. Considering the above submission, the Court, therefore,
without adverting to the merits of the application under Section
8 of the A & C Act, refers the matter to Arbitration in exercise of
the powers of this Court under Section 89 CPC, based on theFAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:46
consensus arrived at between the parties. Needless to state, the
plaintiff shall not object to the arbitrability of the issue before the
Arbitrator, considering the above.
5. Justice Rajiv Shakdher, (Retd.) (Mobile No. 9717495004) is
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The fee of the Sole Arbitrator
shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the A&C Act.
6. All issues inter se the parties, may be placed before the
Arbitrator, in accordance with law.
7. In view of the directions passed under Section 89 of CPC, the
Court fee be refunded to the plaintiff. The Registry is directed
accordingly.
8. Petition is disposed of with all pending applications, if any.
9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.”
6. Order dated 11th February, 2025 is set out as under :
“1. Applications under Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 (‘ A&C Act’) and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC‘) have been moved on behalf of defendant
no. 1.
2. However, at the very outset, a submission is made by Mr. Sumit
Bansal, Senior Counsel for plaintiff that, without prejudice to their
objection that the Arbitration Clause in the Lease Agreement to
does not cover the disputes that arose in the Memorandum of
Security Deposit, basis which the suit was filed for recovery of
approximately Rs. 36.40 Crores plus interest, they are agreeable
to the matter being referred to the Arbitration by this Court under
Section 89 of the CPC.
3. Counsel for defendant had already filed an application under
Section 8 of the A&C Act and, therefore, per se, do not have
objection that the disputes be referred to Arbitration.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:46
4. Considering the above submission, the Court, therefore, without
adverting to the merits of the application under Section 8 of the
A&C Act, refers the matter to Arbitration in exercise of the powers
of this Court under Section 89 of the CPC, based on the consensus
arrived at between the parties. Needless to state, plaintiff shall not
object to the arbitrability of the issue before the Arbitrator,
considering the above.
5. In a connected matter being CS(COMM) 634/2024, orders were
passed on 10th February 2025, on similar lines, appointing Mr.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.), Former Chief Justice, High Court
of Himachal Pradesh, as the Sole Arbitrator. Considering that
parties are the same, the said matter be also referred to
Arbitration.
6. Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher (Retd.), Former Chief Justice, High
Court of Himachal Pradesh (Mobile No. 9717495004) is
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The fee of the Sole Arbitrator
shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the A&C Act.
7. All issues inter se the parties, may be placed before the
Arbitrator, in accordance with law.
8. In view of the directions passed under Section 89 of CPC, the
Court fee be refunded to the plaintiff. The Registry is directed
accordingly.
9. Petition is disposed of with all pending applications, if any.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.”
7. A perusal of the impugned orders extracted hereinabove clearly shows
the Court that the appointment of the ld. Arbitrator was with the consent of
parties and neither party had any objection to the said appointment.
8. The Court has queried ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:46
as to whether the Appellants wish to press the appeals in light of the mutual
consent of the parties clearly captured in the impugned orders. Ld. Senior
Counsel for the Appellants submits that insofar as the Appellants are
concerned, they do not wish to press the appeals anymore and wish to
withdraw the same.
9. Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent- Mr. Shailendra Singh Bhadoria
also submits that he had in fact given consent for appointment of the arbitrator
before the ld. Single Judge.
10. Ld. Counsels for the Respondents further submit that the Respondents
do not insist on the Directors and the Promoters of the Respondent Company
being made parties to the arbitration. Therefore, they are willing to drop Mr.
Rohit Sinha, Mr. Daupal Bharti, Mr. Shailendra Singh Bhadoria and Mr.
Neeraj Singal from the memo of parties for the arbitration proceedings as
well.
11. Under these circumstances, the parties are referred to the Sole
Arbitrator in terms of the said two impugned orders. The arbitration
proceedings shall continue between M/s. Tata Steel Limited and M/S Vistrat
Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the two corporate entities.
12. The appeals are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn in these terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
APRIL 21, 2025/nd/ss
FAO(OS) (COMM) 60/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 22:13:46