Ms. Mehvish Khan, Mr. Aman Choudhary, Advs v. JK LAMINATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SH ISRANI

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV % O R D E R 16.04.2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the affidavit of service which reads as under: “AFFIDAVIT I, Mehvish Khan D/o Sh. Sajed Khan aged about 35, Counsel for the Petitioner Company, Having Chamber No. 164, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:-

1. That I am the Counsel for the Petitioner Company in the present petition and as such I am fully competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have served the notice issued by the Hon'ble High court along with the copy of the petition along with annexures to both the Respondents on behalf of the Petitioner Company through the e-mail i.e. [email protected] on 06.02.25. The status of service pursuant to the said e-mail has been tabulated below. The copy of the e-mail is annexed herewith. Respondent No. E-mail address 1 and 2 [email protected] Unserved “Address not found” Status/ Remark This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01

3. That I have attempted to serve the notice issued by the Hon'ble High court along with the copy of the petition along with annexures to both the Respondents on behalf of the Petitioner Company via WhatsApp on 06.02.2025 through the WhatsApp number 7764933350. The status of the attempted service via WhatsApp has been tabulated below. The screenshot of the WhatsApp messages is annexed herewith and the details of the same are tabulated as under: WhatsApp Respondent number No. 9978522444 1 9978528280 2

06.02.2025 06.02.2025 Delivered. Delivered. Date of service Status

4. That I have sent the notice issued by this Hon 'ble Court along with copy of petition with annexures to the Respondent No. 1 on behalf of the Petitioner Company via Speed post and Courier to the following addresses: S. No. 1. Speed Post Unserved Address Courier

3. SHED NO. C1- 30/49, NARODA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GIDC NARODA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT- 382330 G-1101, ELEVENTH FLOOR, RIVER VELLY-1 , SARDAR NAGAR HANSOL, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT- 382475 1133 31 ANIL ESTATE, OPP. ST WORKSHOP NR. DHANUSHDHARI MANDIR, PATIA NARODA ROAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-382330 Delivered Delivered Unserved

5. That I have sent the notice issued by this Hon'ble Court along with copy of petition with annexures to the Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the Petitioner Company via Speed post and Courier to the following This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01 address: S. No. 1. Address G-1101, ELEVENTH FLOOR, RIVER VELLY-1, SARDAR NAGAR HANSOL, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-382475 Speed Post Unserved Courier Delivered. That the postal Receipts, Courier along with their

6. tracking reports are annexed herewith -sd- DEPONENT”

2. According to her, the speed post service was effected on both the respondents upon the address forming part of the loan agreement.

4. In view of the aforesaid, service to the respondents stands complete. The facts of the case would indicate that on 23.02.2023, a Master Loan Agreement (MLA) was executed between the parties, and a loan for a sum of Rs. 13,31,786/- was sanctioned.

5. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the said loan amount was disbursed to the respondents in terms of the aforesaid loan agreement. The petition also states that the respondents have not obeyed the fiscal discipline as has been stipulated in the agreement for repayment, and, therefore, the notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) was also issued on 10.10.2024.

6. It is also stated in the petition that despite notice, the balance amount was not paid. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

7. The Court finds that in Clause 8.2 of the MLA, the provision for the resolution of disputes by reference to arbitration is enshrined. Clause 8.2 of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01 the said agreement reads as under: “8.2 Arbitration: Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation , any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination (“Dispute”), shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Lender. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitrator’s decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party, with each Party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration tribunal. Any award by the arbitration tribunal shall be final and binding.”

8. It is thus seen that the dispute is amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It is explicitly evident that where there exists an arbitration clause in the event any dispute arises between the parties, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the same. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.,1 TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.,2 Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited.,3 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV % O R D E R 16.04.2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the affidavit of service which reads as under: “AFFIDAVIT I, Mehvish Khan D/o Sh. Sajed Khan aged about 35, Counsel for the Petitioner Company, Having Chamber No. 164, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054, do hereby solemnly affirm as under:-

1. That I am the Counsel for the Petitioner Company in the present petition and as such I am fully competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have served the notice issued by the Hon'ble High court along with the copy of the petition along with annexures to both the Respondents on behalf of the Petitioner Company through the e-mail i.e. [email protected] on 06.02.25. The status of service pursuant to the said e-mail has been tabulated below. The copy of the e-mail is annexed herewith. Respondent No. E-mail address 1 and 2 [email protected] Unserved “Address not found” Status/ Remark This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01

3. That I have attempted to serve the notice issued by the Hon'ble High court along with the copy of the petition along with annexures to both the Respondents on behalf of the Petitioner Company via WhatsApp on 06.02.2025 through the WhatsApp number 7764933350. The status of the attempted service via WhatsApp has been tabulated below. The screenshot of the WhatsApp messages is annexed herewith and the details of the same are tabulated as under: WhatsApp Respondent number No. 9978522444 1 9978528280 2

06.02.2025 06.02.2025 Delivered. Delivered. Date of service Status

4. That I have sent the notice issued by this Hon 'ble Court along with copy of petition with annexures to the Respondent No. 1 on behalf of the Petitioner Company via Speed post and Courier to the following addresses: S. No. 1. Speed Post Unserved Address Courier

3. SHED NO. C1- 30/49, NARODA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GIDC NARODA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT- 382330 G-1101, ELEVENTH FLOOR, RIVER VELLY-1 , SARDAR NAGAR HANSOL, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT- 382475 1133 31 ANIL ESTATE, OPP. ST WORKSHOP NR. DHANUSHDHARI MANDIR, PATIA NARODA ROAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-382330 Delivered Delivered Unserved

5. That I have sent the notice issued by this Hon'ble Court along with copy of petition with annexures to the Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the Petitioner Company via Speed post and Courier to the following This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01 address: S. No. 1. Address G-1101, ELEVENTH FLOOR, RIVER VELLY-1, SARDAR NAGAR HANSOL, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-382475 Speed Post Unserved Courier Delivered. That the postal Receipts, Courier along with their

6. tracking reports are annexed herewith -sd- DEPONENT”

2. According to her, the speed post service was effected on both the respondents upon the address forming part of the loan agreement.

4. In view of the aforesaid, service to the respondents stands complete. The facts of the case would indicate that on 23.02.2023, a Master Loan Agreement (MLA) was executed between the parties, and a loan for a sum of Rs. 13,31,786/- was sanctioned.

5. As per the case set up by the petitioner, the said loan amount was disbursed to the respondents in terms of the aforesaid loan agreement. The petition also states that the respondents have not obeyed the fiscal discipline as has been stipulated in the agreement for repayment, and, therefore, the notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) was also issued on 10.10.2024.

6. It is also stated in the petition that despite notice, the balance amount was not paid. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

7. The Court finds that in Clause 8.2 of the MLA, the provision for the resolution of disputes by reference to arbitration is enshrined. Clause 8.2 of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2025 at 14:53:01 the said agreement reads as under: “8.2 Arbitration: Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation , any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination (“Dispute”), shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Lender. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitrator’s decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party, with each Party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration tribunal. Any award by the arbitration tribunal shall be final and binding.”

8. It is thus seen that the dispute is amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It is explicitly evident that where there exists an arbitration clause in the event any dispute arises between the parties, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the same. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.,1 TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.,2 Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited.,3 and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In