Surinder Singh Tirath Singh Chandhok v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors

O R D E R %

20.08.2026

¶1The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the directions as contained in the order dated 28th September, 2018, passed by this Court in O.M.P. 694/2011, wherein, directions were issued in the following manner: "xxx xxx xxx

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

xxx xxx xxx"

¶2By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent had been directed to provide calculations to the petitioner with regard to the payments having already been given by the petitioner to the respondents.

¶3He submits that the said calculations have not been provided to the petitioner till date.

¶4In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has handed over to this Court, copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vidya Drolia and Others Versus Durga Trading Corporation and other connected matters, reported as (2021) 2 SCC 1, wherein, it has been held as follows: "xxxx xxx xxx

¶58Consistent with the above, observations in Transcore [ Transcore v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 125 : (2008) 1 SCC

(Civ) 116] on the power of the DRT conferred by the DRT Act and the principle enunciated in the present judgment, we must overrule the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4815 : (2013) 134 DRJ 566] , which holds that matters covered under the DRT Act are arbitrable. It is necessary to overrule this decision and clarify the legal position as the decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4815: (2013) 134 DRJ 566] has been referred to in M.D. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Frozen Foods Exports (P) Ltd. [M.D. Frozen Foods Exports (P) Ltd. v. Hero Fincorp Ltd., (2017) 16 SCC 741 : (2018) 2 SCC

(Civ) 805], but not examined in light of the legal principles relating to non-arbitrability. The decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. [HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4815: (2013) 134 DRJ 566] holds that only actions in rem are non-arbitrable, which as elucidated above is the correct legal position. However, non-arbitrability may arise in case of the implicit prohibition in the statute, conferring and creating special rights to be adjudicated by the courts/public fora, which right including enforcement of order/provisions cannot be enforced and applied in case of arbitration. To hold that the claims of banks and financial institutions covered under the DRT Act are arbitrable would deprive and deny these institutions of the specific rights including the modes of recovery specified in the DRT Act. Therefore, the claims covered by the DRT Act are non-arbitrable as there is a prohibition against waiver of jurisdiction of the DRT by necessary implication. The legislation has overwritten the contractual right to arbitration.

xxx xxx xxx"

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶5By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that with regard to claims of banks and financial institutions, which are covered by the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ("DRT Act"), the Supreme Court had categorically held that such disputes are non-arbitrable.

¶6He, thus, submits that the said order dated 28th September, 2018 compliance of which is being sought by way of the present petition, is non-est in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court.

¶7He further submits that in view of the aforesaid position of law as clarified by the Supreme Court, the respondent has already initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act"), in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

year 2023.

¶8He has handed over to this Court, the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunals ("DRT"), Mumbai, as well as the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ("DRAT"), Mumbai, to submit that the proceedings are pending in Mumbai, before the DRT, as well as the DRAT.

¶9Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case would not be covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, as the respondent-bank is only an assignee of the loan from a non-banking institution.

¶10At this stage, this Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that they shall supply the calculations.

¶11He further submits that the calculations on the basis of which, the SARFAESI proceedings have been initiated, shall be duly provided to the petitioner in the said proceedings.

¶12The aforesaid statement is taken note of.

¶13Leaving the question of law open, it is directed that the calculations on the basis of which SARFAESI proceedings have been initiated, shall be supplied to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶14Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.

¶15Pending application also stands disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 20, 2026/SK The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010390572026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1499/2026 & CM APPL. 56367/2026 SURINDER SINGH TIRATH SINGH CHANDHOK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vipin Nandwani, Adv. (Through VC) versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kaushik Mishra and Mr. Shailesh K. Rajan, Advs. Mob: 8800149595 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA