Advocates and Legal Consultants

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

ORIGINAL COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION
OMP (COMM) No. of 2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M/s Urmit Enterprises & Ors …Petitioners
Versus
M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents
NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd.
Registered Office at Aggarwal Corporate Tower,
Plot No. 23, 5th Floor, Govind Lal Sikka Marg,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 …Respondent
Kindly take notice that the accompanying Petition is likely to be

listed before the Hon’ble Court on __/03/2023.
New Delhi
Dated:- 24.03.2023
Petitioner, Through Counsel:
HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA, SUMIT RAWAT AND

KESHAV NAGI, Advocates,
Advocates and Legal Consultants
Office: E-603, Lawyers Chambers, Kark ardooma Court Complex, Delhi-110032
Email:- [email protected], [email protected]
Phones:+91-8383990598, +91-9211535353
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. M/s Urmit Enterprises

1st Floor. 40/7/1, Samaypur Industrial Area,
Delhi-110042
2. Smt. Preeti Sachdeva

Prop. of Urmit Enterprises,
R/o H. No. WZ-1888, 1st Floor,
Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034
3. Sh. Raman Kumar

R/o H. No. WZ-1888, 1st Floor,
Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034 …Petitioners
Versus
Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd.

Registered Office at Aggarwal Corporate Tower,
Plot No. 23, 5th Floor, Govind Lal Sikka Marg,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 …Respondent No. 1
Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, (Sole Arbitrator)
Chamber No. 454, Eastern Wing,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-110054 …Respondent No. 2
New Delhi
Dated:- 24.03.2023

Phones:+91-8383990598, +91-9211535353
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
SYNOPSIS
1. That the petitioner is filing the present Petition for setting aside an
Arbitral Award dated 16.12.22, passed by Sh. Nirmal Kumar
Agarwal, Sole Arbitrator, (Retd. Additional District and Sessions
Judge) in a case titled as “M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. V/s
Urmit Enterprises & Ors.” wherein the claim for recovery of
Rs.11,55,596/- along with the interest of the Claimant/Respondent
has been awarded.
2. That the Petitioner approached the Respondent company for availing

loan facility that is business loan amounting to Rs.10,10,384/- which
was granted to the Petitioner and Petitioner executed a loan facility
agreement dated 20.09.2019 thereby agreeing to repay the loan
amount in 36 monthly installments that is Rs.37,293/- with effect
from 02.11.2019. Prior to that certain blank documents were got
signed from the Petitioners by the officials of Respondent No. 1 at
their house on the instruction of Respondent No. 1. The petitioners
never visited the office of the Respondent No. 1 situated at Rajendra
Place, New Delhi at any point of time. The officials of Respondent
No. 1 visited the house of the Petitioner whereby certain blank
documents were got signed from the Petitioners by the officials of
the Respondent No. 1 and also all the other formalities related to the
loan were completed at the house of the Petitioners.
3. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,10,384/- against the aforesaid loan

was disbursed in the month of October to the Petitioner against the
acknowledgement issued by the officials of the Respondent No. 1
and the said amount was paid into the bank account of the Petitioner.
4. That the petitioners never received any notice/summons or intimation

from the Respondents in respect of the arbitration proceedings and
due to the same they were not aware about the pendency of the
arbitration proceedings.
List of Dates & Events
Dates Particulars
September, 2019 Petitioner approached the Respondent

company for availing loan facility that is
business loan amounting to Rs.10,10,384/-
20.09.2019 Loan facility agreement dated 20.09.2019 was

executed between the Petitioner & Respondent
for an amount of Rs.10,10,384/- whereby
Petitioner agreed to repay the loan amount in
36 monthly installments that is Rs.37,293/- with
effect from 02.11.2019.
27.07.2022 Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent

No. 1 before Respondent No. 2 without the
consent of the Petitioners and Petitioners did
not received any notice/summons or
intimations from the Respondents in respect of
the arbitration proceedings and due to the
same they were not aware about the pendency
of the arbitration proceedings.
16.12.2022 The ex-parte impugned award was passed by

the Respondent No.2 without following the
due process of law where in claim for recovery
of Rs.11,55,596/- along with the interest of the
claimant/Respondent No.1 has been awarded.
December, 2022 Petitioner came to know about the Impugned

Arbitral Award, when the same was delivered
at the address of the Petitioner.
March, 2023 Hence the Present Petition
New Delhi
Dated:- 24.03.2023

Phones:+91-8383990598, +91-9211535353
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
PETITION/ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE

ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT , 1996 FOR
SETTING ASIDE AWARD DATED 16.12.2022 PASSED BY
SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR AGGARWAL, SOLE
ARBITRATOR (RETD ADDITIONAL DISTT AND
SESSION JUDGE), IN CASE TITLED AS “M/s CLIX
CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD. VS M/s. URMIT
ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS” WHERE IN THE CLAIM
FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 11,55,596/- ALONGWITH
INTEREST OF THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT HAS
BEEN AWARDED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
3. That the petitioner is filing the present Petition for setting aside an
Arbitral Award dated 16.12.22, passed by Sh. Nirmal Kumar
Agarwal, Sole Arbitrator, (Retd. Additional District and Sessions
Judge) in a case titled as “M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. V/s
Urmit Enterprises & Ors.” wherein the claim for recovery of
Rs.11,55,596/- along with the interest of the Claimant/Respondent
has been awarded.
BRIEF FACTS
4. That the Petitioner approached the Respondent company for availing

loan facility that is business loan amounting to Rs.10,10,384/- which
was granted to the Petitioner and Petitioner executed a loan facility
agreement dated 20.09.2019 thereby agreeing to repay the loan
amount in 36 monthly installments that is Rs.37,293/- with effect
from 02.11.2019. Prior to that certain blank documents were got
signed from the Petitioners by the officials of Respondent No. 1 at
their house on the instruction of Respondent No. 1. The petitioners
never visited the office of the Respondent No. 1 situated at Rajendra
Place, New Delhi at any point of time. The officials of Respondent
No. 1 visited the house of the Petitioner whereby certain blank
documents were got signed from the Petitioners by the officials of
the Respondent No. 1 and also all the other formalities related to the
loan were completed at the house of the Petitioners.
5. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,10,384/- against the aforesaid loan

was disbursed in the month of October to the Petitioner against the
acknowledgement issued by the officials of the Respondent No. 1
and the said amount was paid into the bank account of the Petitioner.
6. That the petitioners never received any notice/summons or intimation

from the Respondents in respect of the arbitration proceedings and
due to the same they were not aware about the pendency of the
arbitration proceedings.
7. That the Petitioner being aggrieved from the impugned ex parte

Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 has preferred the present Petition
on the following grounds amongst others:-
A. Because, the impugned arbitration award dated 16.12.2022 has
been based on presumption/assumption. Therefore, the same is
liable to be set aside/quashed.
B. Because no notice for appointment of Ld. Arbitrator was

received by the Petitioners at any point of time. Further no
consent for appointment of Ld. Sole Arbitrator was given by the
Petitioner at any point of time. Therefore, in the absence of
consent of the Petitioners for appointment of Ld. Sole Arbitrator,
the Respondent No. 1 should have approached the Hon’ble High
Court for appointment of independent Arbitrator. However, the
Respondent No. 1 has not complied with Section 11 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act and rather chose to appoint the
Sole Arbitrator arbitrarily as per its own convenience, which is
contrary to law. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as “Perkins Eastman Architects DPC V/s HSCC
(India) Ltd, (2019, SCC online SC 1517) held in para 20 and
21 that “We thus have two categories of cases. The first, similar
to the one dealt with in TRF Ltd, where the Managing director
himself is named as an arbitrator with an additional power to
appoint any other person as an arbitrator. In the second
category, the managing director is not to act as an arbitrator
himself but is empowered or authorized to appoint any other
person of his choice or description as an arbitrator. If, in the
first category of cases, the managing director was found
incompetent. It was because of the interest that he would be
said to be having in the outcome or result of the dispute. The
element of invalidity would thus be directly relatable to and
arise from the interest that he would be having in such outcome
or decision. If that be the test, similar in validity would always
arise & spring, even in the second category of cases. If the
interest that he has in the outcome of the dispute is taken to the
basis, for the possibility of bias, it will always be present,
irrespective of whether the matter stands under the first or
second category of cases. We are conscious that if such
deduction is drawn from the decision of this court in TRF Ltd,
all cases having close is similar to that with which we are
presently concerned, a party to the agreement would be
disentitled to make any appointment of an arbitrator on its own,
and it would always be available to argue that a party or an
official or an authority having interest in the dispute would be
disentitled to make appointment of an arbitrator.
C. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF
Ltd. Paragraph 50 of the decision shows that this court was
concerned with the issue, inverted, whether the Managing
Director, after becoming ineligible by operation of the law, is he
still eligible to nominate an Arbitrator. The ineligibility referred
to therein, was a result of operation of law, in that a person
having an interest in the dispute, or in the outcome or decision
thereof, must not only be in eligible to act as an arbitrator, but
must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator
and thus that such person cannot and should not have any role
in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having
the power to appoint an arbitrator. The next sentences in the
paragraph further show that cases where both the parties could
nominate respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be
completely a different situation. The reason is clear that
whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an
arbitrator of its choice, would get counterbalanced by equal
power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party
has a right to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, its choice will always
have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the
course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an
interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have
the power to appoint a sole arbitrator. That has to be taken as
the essence of the amendment brought in by the Arbitration and
Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) and
recognised by the decision of this court in TRF Ltd. Hence, in
view of the aforesaid provisions of law and judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned Arbitral Award is
liable to be set aside.
D. That the Impugned Award has been passed under fraud played
by Respondent No. 1 before the Ld. Arbitrator. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in a case titled as “S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (Dead) by LRs V/s Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors.
(II 1993 BC 546 SC)” held that “it is the settled proposition of
law that a Judgement or Decree obtained by playing fraud on
the court is nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a
Judgement/Decree by the first court or by the highest court has
to be treated as nullity by every court, whether superior or
inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in the collateral
proceedings” .
E. Because the petitioners were not given proper notice about the
ex-parte proceedings by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. That under the
legal laws, it is an established fact that the omission in giving
notice to a party before proceeding, ex-parte is a serious
irregularity in the procedure and amounts to miss conduct. It is a
salutary principle of Natural justice that nobody should be
condemned unheard.
F. Because the proper procedure has not been followed by the

Respondent No. 2 (Sole Arbitrator) as provided under the law of
land which directs the Respondent No. 2 to give the parties
concerned and opportunity of being heard after service of
registered notices confronting the parties with the ground for their
proposed expulsion, the Petitioners have not been given any
opportunity to explain their stand, the proposal for expulsion of
the Petitioners by the Respondent No. 2 is vitiated and perverse.
Hence the Order/Award of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
G. Because, the Petitioners were not aware about the arbitration

proceedings. Due to the same, they were unable to present the
case.
H. Because it is an established legal fact that the proceedings before

the Arbitrator are not on the same parameter or pedestal as those
in the court. The arbitral award can be set aside if it is perverse,
whimsical, arbitrary, or is in complete violation of principles of
natural justice or suffer from the Vice of bias or partiality. That is
why obligation is cast upon the arbitrator to assess and evaluate
the claims and counterclaims of the parties after providing them
substantially effective and full opportunity to prove them.
I. Because Respondent No. 1 has suppressed the real fact from the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator and filed the claim petition with ulterior
motives and illegal design to extract the money from the
Petitioners on the pretext of breach of terms and condition of the
agreement and under the misleading facts produced before the
Ld. Sole Arbitrator, the impugned Arbitral Award has been
passed, hence, the said impugned Arbitral Award is liable to be
set aside, on this ground alone.
J. That the Respondent No. 1 has suppressed the real fact and
misled the Ld. Sole Arbitrator that signature of the Petitioners
were taken on certain documents by the Respondent No. 1
without disclosing the averments and facts mentioned in those
documents , moreover, the copy of the said alleged agreement
dated 16.12.2022 was never supplied to the Petitioners which
clearly shows that said alleged agreement was not valid as the
same had been executed by the Petitioners under influence, force
and fraud by the Respondent No. 1, therefore, due to the illegality
of the alleged agreement, the impugned Arbitral Award is liable to
be set aside on this ground alone.
K. Because the impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 is an

unfair, unreasonable and violation of the principles of natural
justice and also it is opposed to the public policy of India, hence
the said impugned Arbitral Award dated – is liable to be set aside.
8. That the impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Ld.

Sole Arbitrator where in the claim petition of Respondent No. 1 has
been allowed is liable to be set aside on the above stated grounds.
9. Because the claim raised by the Claimant/Respondent No. 1 before
the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was barred by law because no consent for
appointment of the Arbitrator was given by the Petitioners which is
mandatory as per law, therefore, the impugned Arbitral Award is
liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
10. That the Petitioners have not filed any other appeal/revision or
proceedings in this Hon’ble Court or any other court challenging the
impugned Award/Order. The Petitioner has no other remedy
available to it other than to approach the Hon’ble Court by way of
the present Petition.
11. That the petition is within the period of limitation as the Impugned
Arbitral Award was passed on 16.12.2022 & Petitioners have filed
the present Petition before the completion of 90 days from the date
of passing of Impugned Award. Therefore, the present petition is
well within limitation as per law.
PRAYER:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the Application/Petition of the Petitioners,
and
I. Impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Sh. Nirmal

Kumar Agarwal Ld. Sole Arbitrator (Retired Additional District and
Sessions Judge) in a case titled M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
V/s Urmit Enterprises & Ors. may kindly be set aside.
II. Concerned Arbitration proceedings record in case titled M/s Clix
Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. V/s Urmit Enterprises & Ors. trial
conducted and decided by Shri Nirmal Kumar AggarwalLd. Sole
Arbitrator Retired Additional District and Sessions Judge wide
Award dated 16.12.2022 may also be called,
III. Cost of the Petition may also be awarded in favour of the

Petitioners.
IV. Any other or further orders or orders which this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the
respondents.
New Delhi
Dated:- 24.03.2023

Phones:+91-8383990598, +91-9211535353
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
(Under First Schedule ; OrderVI-Rule15 and OrderX-Rule 1)
Statement of Truth by Preeti Sachdeva W/o Raman Sachdeva,
Proprietor of the Petitioner No.1 having office at 1st Floor. 40/7/1,
Samaypur Industrial Area, Delhi-110042
I, the Deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirms and

declare as under:
1. I am Preeti Sachdeva W/o Raman Sachdeva, R/o H. No. WZ-1888,
1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034, proprietor of the
Petitioner no.1 in the above petition and competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. I say that I am sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and
have also examined all relevant documents and records in relation
thereto.
3. I say that the contents of the petition are true to my knowledge

based on the records and statements made in the petition.
4. I say that there are no false statements or concealment of any
material fact, document or record and I have included information
i.e., according to me, relevant for the present petition.
5. I say that all documents in my power, possession, control or

custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the
proceedings initiated by me have been disclosed and copies thereof
annexed with the petition and that I do not have any other document
in my power, possession, control or custody.
6. I say that the above mentioned pleading comprises a total of _____

pages, each of which has been signed by me.
7. I state that annexures hereto are true copies of the documents

referred to and relied upon by me.
8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or concealment, I

shall be liable for action taken against me under the law.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of March, 2023. That
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Statement of Truth by Preeti Sachdeva W/o Raman Sachdeva,R/o
H. No. WZ-1888, 1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034,
Petitioner No.2 in the above captioned case

declare as under:
1. I am Preeti Sachdeva W/o Raman Sachdeva, R/o H. No. WZ-1888,
1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034, Petitioner no.2 in
the above petition and competent to swear this affidavit.
thereto.


custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings
initiated by me have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with
the petition and that I do not have any other document in my power,
possession, control or custody.
6. I say that the above mentioned pleading comprises a total of ___



DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
Statement of Truth by Raman Sachdeva S/o Lt. Sh. Amrit Lal
Sachdeva R/o H. No. WZ-1888, 1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti,
Delhi-110034, Petitioner No.3 in the above captioned case

declare as under:
1. I am Raman Sachdeva S/o Lt. Sh. Amrit Lal Sachdeva, R/o H. No.
WZ-1888, 1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034,
Petitioner no.3 in the above petition and competent to swear this
affidavit.
thereto.


custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings
initiated by me have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with
the petition and that I do not have any other document in my power,
possession, control or custody.
6. I say that the above mentioned pleading comprises a total of _____



DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Versus
APPLICATION FOR STAY OF THE OPERATION OF

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.12.2022 PASSED BY SH.
NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWAL, SOLE ARBITRATOR
(RETD. ADDL. & SESSION JUDGE), IN CASE TITLED
“M/s CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD. Vs. URMIT
ENTERPRISES & Ors.”
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner has filed the present petition against the impugned
arbitral award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Sh. Nirmal Kumar
Agarwal, Sole Arbitrator, the contents of the said petition may kindly
be read as part and parcel of this application for stay.
2. That the applicants have a good prima facie case in their favour and
are likely to succeed.
3. That the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Petitioner/

Applicant.
4. That in case the impugned award/ order is not stayed, the applicant
shall suffer irreparable loss and injuries which can not be
compensated in terms of money.
PRAYER
It is therefore most humbly prayed that the operation of the

impugned award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Sh. Nirmal Kumar
Agarwal, Sole Arbitrator may kindly be stayed, till the final disposal
of the petition, in the interest of justice.
New Delhi
Dated:- 24.03.2023

Phones:+91-8383990598, +91-9211535353

Advocates and Legal Consultants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advocates and Legal Consultants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advocates and Legal Consultants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

Kindly take notice that the accompanying Petition is likely to be

Petitioner, Through Counsel:

HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA, SUMIT RAWAT AND

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

1. M/s Urmit Enterprises

2. Smt. Preeti Sachdeva

3. Sh. Raman Kumar

Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd.

Petitioner, Through Counsel:

HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA, SUMIT RAWAT AND

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

2. That the Petitioner approached the Respondent company for availing

3. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,10,384/- against the aforesaid loan

4. That the petitioners never received any notice/summons or intimation

List of Dates & Events

September, 2019 Petitioner approached the Respondent

20.09.2019 Loan facility agreement dated 20.09.2019 was

27.07.2022 Claim Petition was filed by the Respondent

16.12.2022 The ex-parte impugned award was passed by

December, 2022 Petitioner came to know about the Impugned

March, 2023 Hence the Present Petition

Petitioner, Through Counsel:

HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA, SUMIT RAWAT AND

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

PETITION/ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

4. That the Petitioner approached the Respondent company for availing

5. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,10,384/- against the aforesaid loan

6. That the petitioners never received any notice/summons or intimation

7. That the Petitioner being aggrieved from the impugned ex parte

B. Because no notice for appointment of Ld. Arbitrator was

F. Because the proper procedure has not been followed by the

G. Because, the Petitioners were not aware about the arbitration

H. Because it is an established legal fact that the proceedings before

K. Because the impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 is an

8. That the impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Ld.

I. Impugned Arbitral Award dated 16.12.2022 passed by Sh. Nirmal

III. Cost of the Petition may also be awarded in favour of the

Petitioner, Through Counsel:

HARSH VARDHAN SHARMA, SUMIT RAWAT AND

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirms and

3. I say that the contents of the petition are true to my knowledge

5. I say that all documents in my power, possession, control or

6. I say that the above mentioned pleading comprises a total of _____

7. I state that annexures hereto are true copies of the documents

8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or concealment, I

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirms and

3. I say that the contents of the petition are true to my knowledge

5. I say that all documents in my power, possession, control or

6. I say that the above mentioned pleading comprises a total of ___

7. I state that annexures hereto are true copies of the documents

8. I say that I am aware that for any false statement or concealment, I

M/s Clix Capital Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. …Respondents

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirms and