2025:JHHC:10612 -1 of 3- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Arbitration Application No. 19 of 2024 M/s Ambey Castings Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, Raj Kumar Choudhary, having registered office at G-17, Shayam Complex, Gola Road, P.O. P.S-Ramgarh Cantt. And District-Ramgarh Jharkhand ... Applicant Versus 1. Yash Alloys Private Limited through its Director/Authorized Representative (s) at 3, Middleton Row, 3rd floor, Block-G, Kolkata, West Bengal. 2. Punjab National Bank, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch through its Branch Manager, Ramgarh Cantt., P.O., P.S. Ramgarh Cantt., District-Ramgarh Jharkhand … … ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For Applicant : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate. Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate --------- 12/Dated: 04.04.2025 Heard both sides. 2. This application has been filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the applicant seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of a Tripartite Agreement dt. 28.08.2022 executed between the parties. 3. There is no dispute that Clause 14 of the Tripartite Agreement contains the arbitration clause. Annexure-7 notice dt. 18.04.2024 has been issued by the applicant to both the respondents invoking the said arbitration clause and also seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 4. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that in the last paragraph of the said notice the applicant had sought initially for placing the matter for settlement by consultation and that if the respondents did not agree to such settlement, they should nominate the Arbitrators. 2025:JHHC:10612 -2 of 3- 5. Admittedly, after receiving the notice neither of the respondents has sought for settlement through consultation, forcing the applicant to file this application. 6. Therefore, this plea that there ought to be a settlement before matter can be referred for arbitration, has to be rejected since the respondents themselves have not made any attempt to settle the dispute through consultation with the applicant. 7. The other contentions raised by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is that proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) had been initiated by the said respondents which was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the applicant and therefore, arbitration cannot take place. 8. This contention is without any merit, because the Supreme Court in (2017) 16 SCC 741, M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited and Others-Vs.-Hero Fincorp Limited, categorically held that SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings can go hand in hand. 9. Though counsel for the 2nd respondent sought to contend that this judgment is not good law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia and Others.-Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, this Court does not agree with the said contention because in para. 56 and in para 58, the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited (Supra) is referred to, but not overruled; and what was overruled was only the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd.-Vs.-Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4815, which has held that matters covered under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are arbitrable. 10. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and Shri Justice C. Praveen Kumar (Retd.), Plot No. 149 B, MP and MLA Colony, Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, 500033, 2025:JHHC:10612 -3 of 3- Telangana is appointed as an arbitrator on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Shri Justice Navneet Kumar (Retd.) Judges Bungalow No. 3, Rajendra Chowk, Doranda, Ranchi – 834002, Jharkhand is appointed as an arbitrator on behalf of respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the dispute between the parties within two weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order, applicant shall also appoint his arbitrator. 11. It is made clear that all other contentions available to the parties are left open for consideration by the learned Arbitrator. 12. Learned Arbitrators would be free to lay down fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, keeping into account the ceiling prescribed under Schedule IV of the Act of 1996 as amended. 13. Learned Arbitrators would endeavor to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, also taking into regard the mandate of the Legislature under Section 29-A of the Act of 1996. 14. The Registry is directed to intimate the learned Arbitrator so appointed to take up the arbitration proceeding and send photocopy of the entire pleadings along with copy of the entire order sheets to the learned Arbitrators. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) APK/Pramanik