W.P.(C) No.21263 of 2020 (G)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P.V.ASHA
- Judgment Date
- 2020-10-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Antony Sunny
- Vellara Antony Sunny
- Mercy Pulikkottil Varghese
Respondents
- Reserve Bank of India
- Consumer Education and Protection Cell, Reserve Bank of India
- Sundaram Finance Ltd.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. P. Sanjay
- • Smt. A. Parvathi Menon
- • Sri. Biju Meenattoor
- • Sri. Paul Varghese (Pallath)
- • Sri. P.A. Mohammed Aslam
- • Sri. Kiran Narayanan
- • Shri. Prasoon Sunny
- • Shri. Rahul Raj P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Millu Dandapani, SC, RBI
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, filed by Antony Sunny, Vellara Antony Sunny and Mercy Pulikkottil Varghese, challenges the appointment of an arbitrator by Sundaram Finance Ltd., the 3rd respondent, in arbitration proceedings emanating from a dispute with the petitioners. The petition asserts that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has a statutory duty under Section 45L of the RBI Act to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Perkins Eastman DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2019), which held that unilateral appointment of arbitrators is impermissible and that those with an interest in the dispute should not influence appointment. Ext. P5, a representation dated 29.09.2020, is invoked to urge the RBI to direct all NBFCs, including the 3rd respondent, to cease unilateral arbitration and align with Perkins Eastman. The petition also seeks a mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue appropriate directions, and a mandamus to the 2nd respondent to act on Ext. P-5 within a time-bound frame, along with a declaration that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent are non-est in view of Perkins Eastman. The respondents counter that Section 45L does not provide for interference in individual arbitrator appointments and that the remedy sought cannot be granted; they rely on Article 226’s limits and a prior Kerala High Court decision in W.P.(C) No.17537/2020. The court ultimately holds that 45L does not empower interference in individual arbitration and dismisses the petition, treating Ext. P5 as a representation without the requested relief.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the 3rd respondent contravenes the principle laid down in Perkins Eastman DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2019) SCC Online SC 1517. They invoke Section 45L of the RBI Act to urge RBI’s duty to ensure compliance with the Apex Court’s ruling and seek mandamus to direct the RBI to cancel unilateral appointments and to halt ongoing arbitration proceedings. They request Ext. P5 be acted upon and that the arbitration be declared non-est in light of Perkins Eastman. They also seek a time-bound consideration of Ext. P5 by the 2nd respondent and other reliefs including costs.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that Section 45L does not authorize intervention in individual arbitrator appointments; the RBI has no statutory duty to interfere in such matters; 45L contemplates information gathering and directions to financial institutions, not intervention in arbitration selections. The court had previously held in W.P.(C) No.17537/2020 that a writ petition cannot lie against appointment of arbitrator under Article 226. The 2nd respondent’s duty under 45L(b) is not triggered by a contested arbitration; Ext. P5 is a representation and cannot compel a remedial order.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perkins Eastman DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd | 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 | Mentioned Only | Cited in the petition to justify reliance on the Perkins Eastman principle, but the court does not apply or extend that judgment to grant relief given the statutory limits of Section 45L and Article 226. |
| W.P.(C) No.17537/2020 | 2020 SCC Online Ker 4196 | Positive | Directly relied upon by the court to hold that a writ petition will not lie against appointment of an arbitrator under Article 226, thereby supporting the dismissal. |
| W.P.(C) 35520/2018 | Exhibit P1 (Judgment, 22.08.2019) | Mentioned Only | Cited as an exhibit judgment; not a central basis for the current decision, but referenced in the Appendix material. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) No.21263 of 2020 (G) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.