The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the need for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petitions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents based on the Facility Agreement dated 30th January 2019.)

1. Captioned 'Original Petition' [hereinafter 'OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 10.02.2021 under Section 11(5) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] with a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. Mr.C.Kaveen, learned counsel representing Mr.Pawan Jhabakh, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner who is before this Court submits that the captioned OP is predicated on clause 15 {Captioned 'JURISDICTION AND GOVERNING LAW'} of a 'contract dated 19.01.2019 {styled / captioned 'FACILITY AGREEMENT'}' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity].

3. Aforementioned clause 15 of primary contract reads as follows:

15. JURISDICTION AND GOVERNING LAW

15.1 This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India and subject to the provisions of Clause 15.2, the Parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts and tribunals at Chennai. The submission to the jurisdiction of the Courts and tribunals of Chennai is for the benefit of the Lender only and shall not (and shall not be construed so as to) limit the right of the Lender to take proceedings in any other Court of competent jurisdiction, nor shall the taking of proceedings by the Lender in any one or more jurisdictions preclude the taking of proceedings by the Lender in any other jurisdiction (whether concurrently or not) if and to the extent permitted by law.

15.2 If any dispute arises between the parties hereto during the subsistence of this Agreement or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement, the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator who shall be a neutral and suitably qualified third party appointed by the Lender.

15.3 The place of arbitration shall be Chennai. The arbitration proceeding shall be governed by the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English and the arbitral award shall be recorded in writing.'

4. Clause 15 of primary contract extracted and reproduced supra serves as arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent companies is learned counsel's say. To be noted, petitioner and respondent companies are two contracting parties qua primary contract and aforementioned clause 15 serves as arbitration agreement being 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act.

5. Adverting to primary contract, it is submitted that transaction between the parties is in the nature of financial assistance / lending. It is not necessary to dilate more on these aspects of the matter as the captioned OP is under Section 11 of A and C Act and the scope of a legal drill under Section 11 of A and C Act is limited (there would be a little more discussion about scope of a Section 11 legal drill, elsewhere infra in this order).

6. Learned counsel submits that when the primary contract was operated, it ran into rough weather as the respondent company allegedly committed default in repayment. This broadly is the arbitrable dispute between the parties. To be noted, this is not a exhaustive adumbration of arbitrable disputes between the parties.

7. Owing to eruption of aforementioned arbitrable dispute between the parties, petitioner issued a 'notice dated 16.10.2020' [hereinafter 'trigger notice' for the sake of convenience and clarity] invoking the arbitration clause is learned counsel's further say. It is submitted that there was difficulty in having the trigger notice served on the noticees,