Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Mr. Tarun Mathur, and Mr. Akshat Singhal, Advs v. DISHA VOICE SURVIELLANCE PRIVATE LTD AND ORS

Through: Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Mr. Tarun Mathur, and Mr. Akshat Singhal, Advs. versus DISHA VOICE SURVIELLANCE PRIVATE LTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Rohit, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The sole objection of the respondent to the instant petition is with respect to the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that he has no such objection(s) if the learned arbitrator is appointed by the Court. He further objects to the calculations placed on record by the petitioner. 4. It is seen that there exists a valid arbitration clause in the agreement dated 21.08.2019, in Clause 20, which reads as under:- “20. The Loan, this document/other documents, shall be governed by the laws of India. The parties hereto expressly agree that all disputes arising out of and/or relating to the Loan, this or any other Relevant document shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:05.08.2025 18:48:09 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV court/tribunal of the city/place in which the branch of IIFL from where the Disbursement has been made is situate, provided that the exclusivity aforesaid shall bind the Borrower and IIFL shall be entitled to pursue the same in any other court of competent Jurisdiction at any other place; such dispute shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as may be amended, or its re-enactment, by a sole arbitrator, appointed by IIFL. The arbitration proceedings shall- be conducted in English language and held at the place more particularly mentioned in the SCHEDULE of the present agreement hereunder. The costs of such arbitration shall be borne by the losing Party or otherwise as determined in the arbitration award If a party is required to enforce an arbitral award by legal action of any kind, the party against whom such legal action is taken shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses and attorney's fees, including any cost of additional litigation or arbitration taken by the party seeking to enforce the award.” The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny

5. under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. This Court, as well, in the order dated 24.04.2025 in case of ARB.P. 145/202, titled as Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd, has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section

11. The Court held as under:- “9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning1, while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 2 has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else. 10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.3, and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,4 that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the