Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Misc. DJ 791/2025
Big Boy Toyz Ltd.
Through Ajay Khirwar, (Authorised Representative)
S/o Sh. Narender Pal Singh,
R/o1428, Sector 10A,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 ....Applicant
In the matter of :
OMP (Comm) No. 83/2019
Piyush Jain
R/o 22nd Floor/17224,
ATS Advantage, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad, U.P.201014
Also at:
Piyush Jain
C/o Jain Prints and Packaging
A2/26, Site4,
GD Steel Compound,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P.201014 .........Petitioner
(respondent No.1)
v.
1. M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office at :
The Oberoi Corporate Tower,
Building No.11, 1st Floor,
DLF Cyber City,
Phase II, Gurugram,
Haryana122002
Branch Office at:
H-5/B1, Mohan Coop Industrial Area,
Mathura Road, New Delhi110044 (respondent No.2)
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 1 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 1 of 7 --
OMP (COMM.) 83/2019
2. Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal
Sole Arbitrator
Off : Chamber No. 480,
New Chamber Block,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of pronouncement of the order : 23.12.2025
ORDER
1) Vide this order, I shall decide off review petition under Section
114 CPC read with XLVII Rule (1) CPC read with Section 151
CPC seeking review of impugned order/judgment dated
05.06.2023 passed in OMP (COMM) No. 83/2019, by this Court.
2) Briefly stated the case of applicant M/s Big Boy Toys Ltd. is that
vide judgment dated 05.06.2023, an exparte arbitral award dated
09.04.2019 passed in favour of respondent no.1 M/s BMW India
Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (respondent in OMP (COMM) No.
83/2019) was set aside. Applicant/petitioner averred that
applicant was seriously prejudiced that it being a bonafide
purchaser of the vehicle in question, was not impleaded as a
necessary party in the proceedings under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
3) Petitioner/applicant averred that on 18.04.2018, a loan-cum-
hypothecation agreement was executed between respondent no.1
and respondent no.2 in respect of a BMW X6 motor vehicle.
Respondent no.1 advanced a sum of Rs.94,15,000/- to respondent
no.2, which was repaid in 60 equated monthly installments. The
said vehicle was hypothecated in favour of respondent no.1 as
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 2 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 2 of 7 --
security of loan. Since the loan was not repaid by respondent
no.2, respondent no. 1 invoked arbitration clause. Arbitration
award was passed on 09.04.2019 and the vehicle in question was
repossessed by respondent no.1 on 04.02.2019. Subsequently on
01.06.2019, applicant/petitioner purchased the vehicle from
respondent no.1 for consideration of Rs.69,00,000/-in accordance
with law. Applicant averred that on or around 21.06.2019, upon
initiation of the process for transfer and registration of
ownership, applicant/petitioner came to know that vehicle had
been blacklisted by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) on the
objection filed by respondent no.2.
4) Applicant averred that several bonafide attempts were made by
him to regularize the ownership of the vehicle by submitting
formal representation to the RTO and also approaching the
respondent no.2 for amicable resolution. Thereafter respondent
no.2 registered FIR no.0928/22 dated 26.07.2022 at PS
Indirapuram. Thereafter vide order dated 05.06.2023 arbitral
award dated 09.04.2019 was set aside by the Court.
5) Applicant challenged the order passed by this court mainly on
following grounds:
1) that this court failed to appreciate that the arbitral
award was passed after due and repeated service of notice
upon respondent no.2; (referred Bharat Heavy Electricals
Ltd. v. Anil Goel (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1234);
2) that this court did not consider the legitimate rights
and interests of the petitioner/applicant;
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 3 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 3 of 7 --
3) that this court has exceeded the scope of interference
permissible under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act; (referred Ssangyong Engineering and Construction
Co.Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131 and Associate Builders
v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49);
4) that this court has caused grave and irreparable
prejudice to the applicant/petitioner, who has been deprived
of peaceful and lawful possession of the vehicle;
5) that this court failed to take into consideration binding
judicial precedents that bar procedural objections from
parties, who have voluntarily opted to abstain from
arbitration (referred Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
MMTC Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6270, wherein it is held
that procedural lapses cannot be invoked by a party who has
consciously chosen not to participate);
6) Applicant/petitioner averred that respondent no.2 after
having defaulted on loan repayments and having suffered
repossession of the vehicle, has resorted to misuse of
criminal proceedings. (Referred Joseph Salvaraj A. v.State
of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59 and G. Sagar Suri v.State of U.P.
(2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that the criminal justice system must not be used as a
tool for setting civil disputes or exerting unlawful pressure;
7) Petitioner averred that setting aside of the arbitral
award, without issuing any notice to the bona fide purchaser,
undermines the legal sanctity of commercial transactions
and arbitral proceedings.
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 4 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 4 of 7 --
6) Thus, petitioner filed this application for review and recall the
order/judgment dated 05.06.2023.
7) Notice was served upon the respondents. Reply to the application
was filed by respondent Piyush Jain. In his reply, respondent
averred that applicant has no locus standi to file the present
application; the present application is time barred and no separate
application seeking condonation of delay has filed was filed by
the applicants. Applicant averred that the present petition is filed
by the applicant in collusion with respondent no.1, because as per
affidavit filed by respondent no.1, it had sold the vehicle to Sh.
Ashish Sood S/o Sh. V.P. Sood. Thus, the present applicant has
no locus standi to file the present petition. Respondent averred
that applicant is well aware that they have illegally possessed the
vehicle in question because RC of vehicle in question was
registered in the name of Piyush Jain. Respondent averred that
without changing the name on RC, insurance was done three
times in the name of different persons. Thereafter, respondent
registered FIR against the applicant at Ghaziabad UP and as per
UP transport authority the vehicle in question is not fit for run on
the road because ‘vehicle is flagged as not to be transacted’.
Respondent averred that the present petition is sheer misuse of
process of law and has been filed on the baseless facts.
Respondent Piyush Jain averred that he is victim of the
conspiracy between the applicant and respondent no.1.
Respondent relied upon following judgments in support of his
submissions:
a) Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224;
b) Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320;
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 5 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 5 of 7 --
c) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (1995) 1
SCC 170;
d) K.D. Sharma v. Sail (2018) 12 SCC 481 and;
e) Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69.
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
8) Ld. counsel for petitioner argued that this car was purchased by
him, after order was passed under Section 9 of the Act.
Therefore, award was also passed thereby allowing claim of
BMW. BMW had repossessed the car and he purchased it on
01.06.2019 and award was passed on 09.04.2019. RTO had
blacklisted the car on the basis of objection filed by Piyush Jain.
Applicant was not made party in petition under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, though he should have been
impleaded as purchaser. Applicant argued that had he been made
a party, then he would have been able to tell Arbitral Tribunal
that the car was with him. Therefore, any order shall be qua loan
liability only and not regarding the car, since he had already
purchased the car. Hon’ble Delhi High Court gave liberty to him
to file this review petition.
9) Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that this petition should
have been filed within 30 days. Ld. counsel further argued that
applicant was not party to the petition under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Only Piyush Jain and M/s
BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. were party to the award.
Respondent/BMW India financial Services had filed affidavit that
car was sold to Ashish Sood.
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 6 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 6 of 7 --
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FACTS AND LAW
10) Applicant through application in hand, has sought review of an
order passed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, vide which an arbitral award dated 09.04.2019 was set aside
by the court. Said petition was filed by Mr. Piyush Jain and M/s
BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. was respondent therein.
The applicant herein was neither a party in the said proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act, nor was a party in the arbitration
proceedings, wherein aforesaid award was passed by ld.
Arbitrator. Applicant was also not a party to arbitration
agreement. The review at the instance of applicant herein is thus,
not maintainable at all because the applicant has no nexus with
the award. It was not a proceeding of civil suit, requiring to
implead any third party as well. Applicant has come up with his
own grievances, however, those grievances cannot have a legal
remedy through this review application. Applicant had no locus
standi at all in the arbitration proceedings and consequently in the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, I
find present application to be totally misconceived and not
maintainable at all. Accordingly, same is rejected.
Pronounced in the (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
Open Court on this District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
23rd December, 2025 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Misc. DJ 791/2025 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page 7 of 7 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
-- 7 of 7 --