The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory perimeter under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confines the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the court's decision is influenced by this statutory provision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Sections 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to (a) appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising under Loan Agreement No.XVFPHOS00003032806 dated 19.06.2019 between the petitioner and the respondents as per the Loan Agreement No.XVFPHOS00003032806 dated 19.06.2019.)

1. This order will now dispose of the captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the first listing of the captioned Arb OP before this Court on 04.07.2022 and proceedings of learned Master dated 16.08.2022 wherein and whereby service was completed qua first respondent. To be noted, service qua second respondent was completed earlier before this Court.

3. Aforementioned proceedings of this Court dated 04.07.2022 and proceedings of learned Master dated 16.08.2022 read as follows:

Proceedings dated 04.07.2022 made by this Court:

'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 13.06.2022 with a prayer for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

2. Mr.D.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner who is before this Court submits that the captioned Arb OP has been presented under Section 11 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] and it is predicated on clause 29 of an agreement captioned 'Loan Agreement' dated 19.06.2019. To be noted, the aforementioned agreement dated 19.06.2019 shall hereinafter be referred to as 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Elaborating on the above, learned counsel submits that primary contract is a loan agreement wherein the petitioner which is 'Non-Banking Financial Company' [hereinafter 'NBFC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] is a lender, respondents 1 and 2 are borrower and coborrower respectively (to be noted, first respondent is a juristic person i.e., Private Limited Company and second respondent is a natural person).

4. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the aforementioned clause 29 of primary contract captioned 'ARBITRATION' and clause 30 of primary contract captioned 'JURISDICTION' and the same read as follows:

29 ARBITRATION: All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this Agreement whether during its subsistence or there after shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the Company. The award given by such Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties to this Agreement. In the event of an appointed arbitrator dying or being unable or unwilling to act as arbitrator for any reason, the Company, on such death of the arbitrator or his inability or unwillingness to act as arbitrator, shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage left by his predecessor. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai or such other place/location/city which the Company at its discretion may decide from time to time.'

30. JURISDICTION : This Agreement has been accepted and executed by the Company at Chennai and all covenants, terms and conditions hereof including payments shall be observed and performed at Chennai and Borrower and Guarantor specifically agree, subject to the arbitration clause contained herein, that Courts in Chennai alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any matter arising out of or concerning this Agreement.'

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for sole petitioner that the aforementio