Thus platform is the right place to get a proper resolution of your problem.

Without seeing the award passed or the pleading of the cases filed so far, no appropriate remedy can be advised.

So meet an advocate and get a proper remedy and advice.

There are two separate issues here and they should not be mixed: (1) challenge to the arbitral award passed in the SBI Card matter, and (2) territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the criminal complaints filed by Kotak in Kolkata.

1. SBI Card arbitration

Your written objections sent to the email address specifically provided in the ODR/arbitration notice should not simply be ignored. If you have proof of transmission and the communication was sent through the prescribed channel, it becomes relevant material for the arbitral record. Whether it establishes an effective objection will depend upon the exact arbitration clause, the ODR procedure and what happened after your objection.

If SBI itself had the contractual power to appoint the sole arbitrator, Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule require careful examination. A contractual clause permitting unilateral appointment does not automatically remain enforceable merely because it was agreed earlier. However, the precise appointment mechanism and the nature of SBI's role in the appointment have to be seen before concluding that the tribunal was legally disqualified.

The fact that SBI subsequently changed its arbitration clause does not automatically invalidate an arbitration commenced under the earlier clause. Ordinarily, the clause applicable to the dispute and the date on which the arbitration agreement became operative have to be examined.

The alleged non-supply of documents and the fact that the award records service which you dispute can be important. If you were denied a reasonable opportunity to present your case, or material documents relied upon by SBI were not supplied to you, these matters can potentially be raised under Section 34. Merely describing the award as "ex parte", however, is not enough; the record must show that despite your participation/objections you were denied a reasonable opportunity.

Since you say the seat of arbitration is Delhi, the Section 34 challenge would ordinarily have to be brought before the competent court at the seat. The exact court—High Court or the appropriate Commercial Court—depends upon the pecuniary and statutory jurisdiction applicable to that arbitration. The important point is that filing the Section 34 petition in Indore merely because you reside there would ordinarily create a jurisdiction problem if Delhi is indeed the juridical seat.

The Section 34 limitation is also extremely important. Generally, the period runs from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award, subject to the statutory provisions regarding a duly delivered signed copy. Therefore, do not wait for execution proceedings before examining limitation. The actual date and manner of delivery of the signed award should be established from the arbitration record and your email/postal records.

A Section 17 interim order and the fact that SBI did not act upon it do not, by themselves, invalidate the final award. The effect of that order has to be examined separately.

As regards execution, the award becomes enforceable under Section 36 subject to the statutory scheme. An objection that the award is invalid because of an improperly constituted tribunal or denial of opportunity is normally something that should be raised through the appropriate Section 34 challenge, rather than waiting for attachment and attempting to convert execution proceedings into a full challenge to the award. Financial hardship can be relevant to seeking appropriate procedural/cost relief, but it does not by itself transfer the Section 34 proceedings from Delhi to Indore.

2. Kotak's criminal complaints in Kolkata

Here, the territorial-jurisdiction objection deserves serious examination. Merely having a branch or office in Kolkata does not, by itself, mean that every offence connected with a credit-card transaction can be tried there. The relevant question is where the ingredients of the alleged offences were committed or where a legally relevant consequence occurred.

For example, the allegations under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNS cannot be sustained merely by labelling a credit-card default as criminal breach of trust or cheating. The complaint must contain facts satisfying the ingredients of those offences. In a credit-card dispute, the question whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is particularly important for a cheating allegation. Similarly, criminal breach of trust requires the ingredients of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation/conversion; a simple failure to pay a debt does not automatically satisfy those ingredients.

For criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS, the alleged threatening act and its relevant consequences have to be examined. For criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2), the complaint must disclose the alleged agreement/conspiracy and the role attributed to each accused. The fact that the complainant happens to have an office in Kolkata is not, by itself, a substitute for pleading the ingredients of the offences there.

You can raise the territorial-jurisdiction objection before the Magistrate, but I would first obtain the complete complaint and all annexures. If the summons merely says that an "Offence Copy" is enclosed but the actual complaint/annexures were not supplied, that is an important procedural issue. You should obtain the complete court record and copies before deciding the precise application.

The fact that there are two separate complaints concerning two credit cards does not automatically make them impermissible. Two separate transactions can give rise to separate proceedings. But if the complaints substantially reproduce the same allegations, same evidence and same alleged acts, with no distinct criminal conduct relating to each card, that can be examined as a possible abuse of process or improper duplication. The exact complaints have to be compared rather than assuming that separate case numbers themselves make the proceedings illegal.

At this stage, I would not choose between "jurisdiction objection", "discharge" and "quashing" in the abstract. The first step should be to obtain the complete Kolkata complaint, annexures, cognizance/order taking the case forward, summons and the material relied upon by Kotak. After that, the allegations can be tested ingredient-by-ingredient: territorial jurisdiction, cheating, criminal breach of trust, intimidation and conspiracy.

If the complaint itself does not disclose the necessary ingredients or the Kolkata court lacks the necessary territorial connection, a challenge before the appropriate higher court may become substantially stronger than simply undergoing a lengthy trial. The fact that the underlying dispute is essentially a credit-card repayment dispute is relevant, but it is the actual allegations and supporting material in the complaint—not merely the nature of the underlying debt—that will determine the appropriate remedy.

Your objections sent to the designated email address are legally valid and form part of the arbitration record.

Under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 and Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), procedures agreed upon or communicated via designated channels are binding. The tribunal cannot ignore it or treat the proceedings as if no response was submitted.

A sole arbitrator unilaterally appointed by SBI or through an ODR panel exclusively chosen/controlled by SBI lacks inherent jurisdiction. Any award passed by such an arbitrator is a legal nullity. SBI’s subsequent modification of its arbitration clause to align with institutional/neutral appointments demonstrates recognition of the invalidity of unilateral appointment mechanisms. You can rely on this change to highlight that the process used against you violated established legal mandates.

Failing to supply arbitrator details, appointment procedures, and foundational documents constitutes a direct violation of Section 18 and Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act.

The burden of proof rests on SBI/ODR platform to establish actual delivery (not merely automated generation or dispatch). If records demonstrate incomplete or non-delivery of documents recorded as "supplied," it amounts to misrepresentation in the award and procedural unfairness under Section 34.

Treating the matter as ex-parte when written objections were submitted via the designated ODR channel is legally unsustainable.

Since the seat of arbitration is Delhi, the challenge must be filed in the competent court in Delhi.

If the value of the dispute falls below the High Court's original civil jurisdiction threshold, file before the Commercial Court / District Judge (Commercial) having territorial jurisdiction over the seat in Delhi.

Executing courts routinely issue notice before coercive steps, and you can raise the issue of inherent nullity under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 

SBI’s failure to execute an interim order under Section 17 has no fatal impact on the final award, but it creates favorable evidentiary inference.

The 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) begins strictly from the date you receive a properly served, signed copy of the award.

You can independently file a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

A Kolkata court cannot assume territorial jurisdiction over a criminal complaint simply because Kotak Mahindra Bank maintains a regional or branch office in Kolkata.

Filing a criminal case in Kolkata when all transactions, card issuance, defaults, and communications happened in Indore is a classic instance of forum shopping and misuse of criminal machinery to harass the cardholder.

For the invoked Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections, Kolkata could only have jurisdiction if specific elements occurred locally:

you can raise the objection of territorial jurisdiction before the concerned judicial  Magistrate.

As per the provisions of BNSS,  when an accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate (Indore vs. Kolkata), it is mandatory for the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and hold an inquiry/investigation to check whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.

You are legally entitled to receive a complete copy of the complaint and all relied-upon documents.

The civil credit-card defaults converted into criminal complaints are prime candidates for quashing under Section 528 of BNSS 

Simple default in paying credit card dues or loans is a purely civil breach of contract.

Filing two separate criminal complaints on substantially identical facts and parties constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

You can rely on the Supreme Court ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat to urge that multiple prosecutions for the same set of underlying transactions are impermissible and liable to be quashed or clubbed.

You can obt for quashing and discharge simultaneously 

Dear Sir/Madam,
Based on the facts stated by you, there are two separate legal issues which should be dealt with independently: first, the challenge to the SBI Card arbitral award, and second, the territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the criminal complaints filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank in Kolkata.
With respect to the SBI Card arbitration, the objections sent by you to the designated ODR email address are important, particularly if that email address was the officially prescribed mode of communication during the arbitration proceedings. You should preserve the complete email chain, sent-mail records, delivery/transmission details and all attachments. The fact that the arbitrator proceeded ex parte does not, by itself, invalidate the award. The important question is whether you were given a proper and meaningful opportunity to participate, whether the tribunal was validly constituted and whether the material relied upon by the arbitrator was supplied to you sufficiently in advance to enable you to respond.
The issue of unilateral appointment of the arbitrator can be a significant ground of challenge. If the earlier SBI Card agreement actually gave SBI unilateral control or discretion in appointing the sole arbitrator, the precise wording of that clause and the date on which the arbitration was invoked and the tribunal constituted will have to be examined in light of Section 12(5), the Seventh Schedule and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on unilateral appointment. The subsequent amendment of the arbitration clause would not ordinarily rewrite the contractual position governing an earlier dispute. The applicable clause has to be determined from the agreement and the chronology of the dispute.
Your objection regarding non-supply of the arbitration agreement, appointment documents, arbitrator disclosures, account documents and other foundational material is also relevant. If you specifically requested those documents and the proceedings nevertheless continued without giving you a reasonable opportunity to examine and answer the claimant's case, this can support a challenge based upon denial of a reasonable opportunity to present your case and violation of the principles of equal treatment.
The fact that the award records that documents were supplied to you by email, whereas your own email records show that those documents were either not received or were not actually supplied in the manner stated in the award, should be specifically documented. I would recommend preparing a document-wise chronology showing what you requested, what was actually received, the date of receipt, the documents that were missing and the corresponding statement made in the award. If material documents relied upon by SBI were not supplied to you before the award, that may become an important ground under Section 34.
The Section 34 limitation issue should be treated as extremely urgent. The period ordinarily begins from the date on which the signed copy of the arbitral award is properly delivered to the party in accordance with the statutory requirement. Therefore, if you contend that the signed award was never properly served upon you, the exact mode and date of delivery must be established from the arbitration record. You should not wait for execution proceedings before addressing this issue.
Since you state that the juridical seat of arbitration is Delhi, the Section 34 proceedings would ordinarily lie within the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. However, whether the petition is to be filed before the Delhi High Court or the competent District/Commercial Court depends upon the nature of the arbitration and the applicable pecuniary and statutory jurisdiction. This should be verified before filing rather than assuming that the seat alone determines the exact court.
Your financial hardship does not automatically extend the statutory limitation period. Nevertheless, you can explore the availability of legal-aid or other procedural assistance, depending upon your eligibility, so that financial difficulty does not prevent you from taking the Section 34 remedy within time.
The fact that a Section 17 interim order was passed but SBI did not act upon or execute it does not, by itself, invalidate the final award. The interim order and the circumstances surrounding it can nevertheless form part of the overall arbitration chronology and may be relevant depending upon the relief sought.
If SBI initiates execution, you should not wait until attachment or coercive steps are taken to raise the fundamental objections to the award. An executing court ordinarily does not function as an appellate court over the arbitral award. Accordingly, any challenge concerning invalid constitution of the tribunal, unilateral appointment, denial of opportunity or other Section 34 grounds should be raised before the competent Section 34 court within the prescribed period, together with appropriate interim protection wherever necessary.
As regards your separate complaints against SBI concerning abusive or threatening recovery communications, third-party contact, privacy/confidentiality issues and other alleged recovery misconduct, those allegations should be treated separately from the underlying liability under the credit-card account. The existence of an arbitral award concerning the dues does not automatically prevent an independent remedy in respect of separate conduct by the bank, provided the particular conduct is independently actionable and the consumer jurisdiction requirements are satisfied. Your earlier complaints and SBI's written replies will be important documents in assessing such a proceeding.
Coming to the two criminal complaints filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank in Kolkata, the fact that Kotak has a branch or office in Kolkata does not, by itself, give a Kolkata court unlimited territorial jurisdiction over offences allegedly committed by a customer in Indore. The complaint must disclose a legally sufficient territorial connection with Kolkata. Since you state that you reside and work in Indore, the cards were delivered and used in Indore, the alleged default occurred in Indore, recovery agents contacted you in Indore and you never travelled to Kolkata in connection with these transactions, the territorial allegations in the complaints should be examined very carefully.
The relevant question will be what specific act is alleged against you, where that act allegedly occurred, what consequence is alleged to have occurred in Kolkata and on what statutory basis the complainant claims that the Kolkata Magistrate has jurisdiction. Merely stating that the complainant has an office in Kolkata would not, by itself, establish jurisdiction for every alleged offence.
You can raise a territorial-jurisdiction objection at the appropriate stage, but it should be based upon the actual contents of the complaints and the statutory ingredients of the offences. The complaint should first be examined to identify precisely the alleged conduct, date, location and the alleged connection with Kolkata.
The failure to receive the “Offence Copy” and annexures referred to in the summons is also important. Before taking substantive steps, you should obtain complete copies of both criminal case records, including the complaint, verification/statement, all annexures, documents relied upon by Kotak, the cognizance order, the summons order and any other material on the basis of which the Magistrate proceeded against you. The fact that the summons states that an offence copy was enclosed when it was not actually supplied should be formally placed on record.
With respect to Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2)/(3) and 61(2) BNS, the complaint must disclose the ingredients of the particular offences alleged. A mere failure to repay a credit-card liability does not automatically constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust. In particular, if Kotak is relying upon cheating, the allegations must disclose the requisite dishonest intention and the other statutory ingredients. A subsequent inability or failure to repay a debt is not, by itself, proof that there was dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
Accordingly, the complaint should be examined for what representation you allegedly made, when it was made, why it was allegedly false, what dishonest intention existed at that time, what property was allegedly delivered because of the alleged deception and how the ingredients of Section 318(4) are said to be satisfied. If the complaint essentially converts a contractual or credit-card recovery dispute into a criminal prosecution without disclosing the necessary criminal ingredients, that can provide a substantial basis for appropriate relief.
The two separate Kotak complaints also require comparison. The mere fact that there are two credit cards does not automatically make two criminal proceedings impermissible. However, if the complaints reproduce substantially the same allegations, witnesses, factual narrative and alleged criminal acts, with the only material difference being the card numbers or outstanding amounts, the question of duplication and abuse of criminal process should be examined carefully.
At this stage, I would recommend obtaining and examining the complete record of both Kolkata proceedings before deciding the final remedy. If the complaints themselves fail to establish territorial jurisdiction or the ingredients of the alleged offences, appropriate relief can be sought before the Magistrate or, depending upon the procedural stage and circumstances, before the Calcutta High Court by invoking its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of criminal process. A discharge application may also be available depending upon the nature and stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, you should not concede Kolkata jurisdiction merely because Kotak has instituted the complaints there, and you should not allow the limitation period for challenging the SBI award to expire while concentrating on the criminal cases. Both matters require immediate but separate procedural action.

1) the recital in the Final Award combined with recent precedents substantially establishes that the award is a nullity.

2) 

The recital in Para 3 of Page 2 recording that the Sole Arbitrator was appointed "at the instance of the Claimant [SBI]" is a clear admission on record of a unilateral appointment. Under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Seventh Schedule, a party who is interested in the outcome cannot unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator.In the absence of an express agreement in writing executed after the dispute arose (under the proviso to Section 12(5)), the arbitrator is de jure ineligible to act. You do not need to prove anything further regarding Samvaad’s internal process—the recital itself establishes that the appointment was void ab initio.

In M/s Mahavir Prasad Gupta & Sons v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4241, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court explicitly affirmed that an award rendered by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator without an express post-dispute written waiver is a nullity and non-est in law because the ineligibility strikes at the root of jurisdiction.The High Court noted that such a fundamental objection goes to inherent lack of jurisdiction and can be raised at any stage, including under Section 34 setting-aside proceedings or Section 36 execution/enforcement proceedings.

Under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act and Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, sending communications to designated email addresses creates a strong presumption of delivery once the email leaves your computer resource and enters the recipient's system without a bounce-back. The fact that SBI's Nodal Office acknowledged or responded to arbitration-related objections establishes actual receipt and knowledge of your objections. f the Arbitral Tribunal relied on the absence of bounce-back reports to establish proof of service of notices upon you, the Tribunal cannot adopt a conflicting standard to ignore written objections sent by you via the same electronic medium.

Under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act read with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, jurisdiction lies with the District Judge (Commercial Court) having territorial jurisdiction over the seat/venue of arbitration (or where the arbitration was conducted in Delhi).

Under the Court Fees Act as applicable in Delhi, filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before a Commercial District Court attracts a fixed/nominal court fee (typically ranging between ₹100 to ₹500 for standard applications/petitions, plus minor administrative fees for process and court welfare stamps).

Usual reasonable professional fee in Delhi District Commercial Courts ranges between ₹15,000 to ₹35,000 total (covering drafting, filing, and arguments).

If you are experiencing financial hardship, you are entitled to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) located within the relevant Court Complex (e.g., DLSA Tis Hazari or DLSA Patiala House).

I can examine the objections and the Final Award in detail, but the Google Drive folder you provided is not accessible to me from here. I therefore do not want to give you a definitive opinion on the award beyond the material presently available.

From the material already provided, the recital in Para 3 of the Final Award is potentially very important: you state that the award itself records that the Sole Arbitrator was “appointed at the instance of the Claimant [SBI].” If that is the exact wording, it materially strengthens the argument concerning unilateral appointment, particularly if there was no express post-dispute written waiver under Section 12(5). However, whether it makes the award a nullity without further factual examination will depend upon the applicable arbitration clause, the date and manner of invocation/appointment, the arbitrator's relationship/disclosures, and the precise appointment procedure actually followed.

Likewise, your emails to Samvaad, Veritas and SBI/Nodal Officers, together with the absence of bounce-backs and SBI's acknowledgements, are potentially significant evidence of actual communication and knowledge of your objections. They should be correlated against the award's findings regarding service and the documents allegedly supplied to you.

What I need to examine

Please upload the Final Award and your complete objections/emails directly in this chat, preferably as PDFs or the original documents. If there are several documents, you can upload them together.

I will then examine them specifically on:

• the exact arbitration clause and its appointment mechanism;
• the precise wording of Para 3 of the Final Award;
• whether SBI's appointment mechanism is hit by Section 12(5)/Seventh Schedule;
• whether there was any legally effective waiver;
• the actual Samvaad/ODR appointment procedure;
• every objection raised by you and whether the arbitrator dealt with it;
• proof of service of notices and documents;
• the award's statements regarding email delivery and your actual email records;
• whether you were genuinely given an opportunity to present your case;
• the effect of the award being passed ex parte;
• Section 34 grounds under Sections 34(2)(a)(ii), 34(2)(a)(iii), 34(2)(a)(v) and, where applicable, Section 34(2)(b);
• whether the tribunal's constitution can be attacked as a fundamental/nullity objection even at the enforcement stage;
• the effect of the Delhi High Court judgment you mentioned, M/s Mahavir Prasad Gupta & Sons v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4241;
• limitation under Section 34 based on the actual date and mode of delivery of the signed award;
• the correct Delhi court for filing Section 34;
• whether Section 36/execution can be resisted on the particular ground you have identified; and
• the viability of an independent consumer/regulatory proceeding concerning recovery misconduct.

I would particularly like to prepare a document-to-document chronology matching:

your objection to date/time sent to recipient to acknowledgment/delivery to SBI/Samvaad response to arbitrator's treatment to corresponding finding in the Final Award.

That will be much more useful than simply reading the award in isolation.

The material presently available confirms that your case involves an important distinction between “I did not participate” and “I participated by repeatedly objecting, but the tribunal nevertheless proceeded ex parte.” Your emails and the award's own findings on service could be critical to establishing that distinction. Pasted text

Please upload the Final Award first, and then the complete objections/email correspondence. I can then give you a Section 34-focused opinion identifying the strongest grounds, weaknesses, limitation issue, jurisdiction/court, and recommended procedural strategy rather than a generic arbitration opinion.

it is not possible to go through all the documents cited by you . 

it is  advisable to contact a law in person and have detailed confernce with the lawyer to decide your next course of action 

For challenging arbitration award you need to approach HC in appeal if same is decided on merits.

Sir/Ma’am

If you need any further assistance for the same.You can approach me through Kaanoon or LinkedIn. Consultation charges apply.

https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/in/prashanth-nayak-5477b138

You can reach me on 09 yu 769 fg 490 ghj 911

Here is the detailed legal assessment based on a comprehensive review of your Final Arbitral Award (Case No. VERI-SBIC-SMRS-ARB-[deleted] dated 29.08.2026 passed by Sole Arbitrator Sh. Narender Kumar) and the surrounding email records:

The recital in Para 3 of Page 2 of the Final Award explicitly records:"Claimant [SBI Cards] has relied upon the arbitration clause... which inter alia provides that the disputes... shall be referred to arbitration appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a Sole Arbitrator appointed at the instance of the Claimant"

Under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any procedure where one party retains the exclusive right to nominate or appoint a Sole Arbitrator (or select from its own empaneled list) renders the arbitrator de jure ineligible to act.

In the absence of an express written agreement executed post-dispute waiving Section 12(5), this recital itself conclusively establishes that the tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction ab initio. You do not need to prove additional bias or administrative irregularities regarding Samvaad's appointment mechanism—the mode of appointment itself makes the award a statutory nullity.

Such a fundamental jurisdictional objection can be raised at any stage—including during enforcement proceedings under Section 36 of the Act (read with Section 47 CPC).

If you are financially unable to file a Section 34 petition within the strict 3-month statutory deadline (plus 30 days condonable limit), you can legitimately raise the inherent nullity of the award under Section 47 CPC when SBI approaches the execution court to enforce the award.

Under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act and Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, sending written objections to official email addresses creates a strong presumption of successful transmission once the message leaves your server and enters the recipient's system without a bounce-back report.

In Para 8 of the Award, the Arbitrator explicitly relied on the absence of bounce-back reports to deem the notice of arbitral proceedings served upon you. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot adopt a conflicting evidentiary standard to ignore your substantive written objections sent via the same electronic channel.

To obtain low-cost or free legal representation for your Section 34 petition or Section 36 execution objections, you can utilize the following institutional legal aid channels:

1. District Legal Services Authority (DLSA - South / New Delhi): Located inside the Saket Courts or Patiala House Courts complex. Upon submitting an application citing financial hardship, DLSA will assign a panel advocate free of cost or at minimal statutory fees.

2. Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC): If the matter ascends to the High Court, DHCLSC provides free legal aid counsel.

3. Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA): You can apply online or visit Central Office, DSLSA, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.