Delhi High Court – Orders
Jagdishchandra Mansukhani vs Sammaan Capital Limited on 16 April, 2026
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1233/2025 & I.A. 24540/2025
JAGDISHCHANDRA MANSUKHANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhijat, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rohin
Dubey, Mr. Atul Vinay Singh, Mr.
Harshvardhan Gupta & Mr. Satyam
Gupta, Advs.
versus
SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Karan
Luthra, Ms. Chanan Parwani, Ms.
Muskan Sethi & Mr. Amer Vaid,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
ORDER
% 16.04.2026
1. This petition is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner availed the financial facility
from respondent i.e. Samman Capital Limited (formerly known as Indiabulls
Housing Finance Limited). On failure to maintain financial discipline, the
proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002)
were challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by the petitioner.
During the pendency of the proceedings, a tripartite agreement for sale of
the mortgage property to a third party was entered. The grievance now
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 21/04/2026 at 20:41:29
raised is that the terms of the tripartite agreement have been violated and has
a consequential effect on the recovery.
3. Learned senior counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the
petition contending that the matter is sub judice before the DRT and the
jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked under Section 11(6) of the Act.
Reliance is placed upon paragraph no.2, 21 and 23 of the reply which are as
under:-
“2. The Respondent submits that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed in view of the fact that the Petition
is not maintainable as (i) There is no arbitration agreement in
existence in respect of the disputes raised by the Petitioner in
relation to the Mortgaged Property (ii) The present Petition
under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
(“A&C Act”) is being barred by limitation having not been
filed within a period of 3 years from the Notice Invoking
Arbitration dated 21.06.2018 thereby intentionally
abandoning any arbitration proceedings for disputes arising
under the Loan Agreement dated 13.05.2011; (iii) the
Petitioner has not invoked Arbitration qua all the parties to
the Loan Agreement dated 13.05.2011 nor are they parties to
the present Petition; (iv) the present Petition suffers from
gross and material suppression of facts and the Petitioner is
guilty of filing a false Statement of Truth and therefore
deserves to be dismissed summarily; and (v) the disputes
raised are ex–facie non-arbitrable in view of the express bar
under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act“). Once already having
elected the remedy under SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner
cannot fall back on an arbitration clause. In any case,
arbitration proceedings are barred in view of Section 2(3) of
the A&CAct.
21. The Respondent humbly submits that the disputes
alleged in the Petition are not arbitrable as civil courts have
no jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to or arising outThis 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 21/04/2026 at 20:41:29
of the enforcement of security interests. Exclusive
jurisdiction qua such disputes vests with the Ld. DRT under
the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent submits that the
jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 of A&C Act is
both impliedly and expressly barred in view of the statutory
mandate of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
23. The Respondent submits that it is evident from the
pleadings above that the disputes raised by the Petitioner in
the present Petition relate to the steps taken by the
Respondent in respect of the enforcement of the Security
Interest created by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent.
Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the Respondent
issued statutory notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, taking symbolic possession of the
Mortgaged Property on 23.08.2017 and 02.07.2018,
respectively. It is also an admitted position that the Petitioner
has challenged these notices under Section 17 of the
SAFAESI Act before Ld. DRT, Mumbai by filing an
application bearing SA No. 476 of 2018. Furthermore, the
Petitioner has also filed another application before the Ld.
DRT, Mumbai being SA No. 177 of 2025 challenging the
sale of Mortgaged Property.”
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner on instructions, in view of
the pleadings in the reply and without prejudice to right to avail remedies in
accordance with law is not pressing this petition with liberty to file fresh at
an appropriate stage, if maintainable.
5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed as not pressed with
liberty as prayed for.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
APRIL 16, 2026
Ch
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 21/04/2026 at 20:41:29
