Tata Capitallimited vs Debabrata Ray on 20 January, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Tata Capitallimited vs Debabrata Ray on 20 January, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

OCD-12
                                ORDER SHEET

                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                              ORIGINAL SIDE
                          COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                             AP-COM/852/2024

                           TATA CAPITALLIMITED
                                   VS
                             DEBABRATA RAY


  BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date :20th January, 2025.

                                                                       Appearance:
                                                        Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Abir Das, Adv.
                                                                 ...for the petitioner.




          The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record.

          Substituted service has been effected in 'Business Standard' and in

'Pratidin' (in the State of Odisha). The e-publication of the said newspapers

have been annexed to the affidavit of service.

          Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to correct the description of the

application.

The petitioner prays for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator

upon recusal of the sole Arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by the

petitioner.

The petitioner is a finance company. A loan was sanctioned in

favour of the respondent by executing an agreement for business loan dated
2

February 17, 2020. Under the terms of the said agreement, the loan was to

be repaid in 70 months (69 instalments). A provision for grant of

moratorium for 14 months was also made in the agreement. The contention

of the petitioner is that the payments were not made in terms of the

agreement and a demand notice as also a loan recall notice was issued. As

the respondent did not act upon such notice and continued to commit

default. A notice invoking arbitration was issued by the petitioner on

February 13, 2023. The respondent did not respond and the dispute was

referred to the learned sole Arbitrator.

It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of

Rs.12,48,031/- along with interest, which approximately comes to around

Rs.15.50 lakhs.

The sole Arbitrator recused by a letter dated February 12, 2024.

Upon recusal of the sole learned Arbitrator, the petitioner has approached

this Court for appointment of the substitute Arbitrator.

The agreement provides for resolution of disputes by way of

arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The

jurisdiction clause provides that the parties may agree to a Tribunal or

Court as set out at serial no.14 of Annexure 1 to the loan agreement. In this

case, the parties agreed to the place arbitration as Kolkata.

Under such circumstances, this Court appoints Mr. Ishaan Saha,

learned Advocate of this Court as Arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the disputes

between the parties as the substitute Arbitrator. This order is subject to

compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3

The learned Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the

Schedule of the Act. The proceedings shall continue from the stage, it was

last held before the erstwhile learned Arbitrator.

The petitioner will be at liberty to take back all the documents from

learned Arbitrator and place the same before the present Arbitrator.

This order is not an adjudication on the merits of the claim of the

petitioner.

The respondent shall be at liberty to raise all questions, including

the arbitrability/validity of the claim of the petitioner before the learned

Arbitrator.

This order shall be communicated to the respondent by the

petitioner.

AP-COM/852/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

pa/arsad