A party does not have to name an Arbitrator unless mutual consent exists, emphasizing the validity of the Trigger Notice in seeking arbitration and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

All these applications can be taken up together, and a common order can be passed in this case.

2. Application Nos.739 and 740 of 2025 have been filed seeking for an appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecated assets and hand over the same to the applicant, and also for verification of the reports, current and fixed assets reports and quarterly assets reports along with schedules singed by the statutory Auditor, so as to enable the Receiver to identify the assets and its location and take custody of the same.

3. Arb.O.P.No.720 of 2025 has been filed under Section 11 (6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 26 of the Master General Terms Agreement dated 03.08.2024 and Clause 13 of the Personal Guarantee, to adjudicate all disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.

4. The applications filed in Arb. Application Nos.739 and 740 of 2025 were heard on 07.08.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:-

These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for the following reliefs:-

a) Application No.740 of 2025 has been filed seeking for appointment of the Authorized Officer of the applicant as the Receiver and, allow him to take possession of the hypothecated assets and, also permit him to break open the premises, if required, and also seek police protection and handover possession of the hypothecated assets to the applicant.

b) Application No.739 of 2025 has been filed seeking to allow the Authorized Officer of the applicant, if appointed as a Receiver to obtain from the respondent and its Statutory Auditor, documents such as physical verification reports, current and fixed assets reports and quarterly assets reports along with schedules signed by the Statutory Auditor, to enable the Receiver to identify the assets, its location and take custody of the same.

2. At the outset, this Court makes it clear that the question of appointment of the applicant's own Employee as a Receiver as prayed for in these applications does not arise as the said Employee will not be a neutral person, therefore, if at all only an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for the relief sought for in these applications.

3. The respondent had availed financial facilities from the applicant under the following agreements:-

a) Facility Agreement dated 03.08.2024.

b) Master General Terms agreement dated 03.08.2024.

c) Deed of Hypothecation dated 03.08.2024.

d) Master Hypothecation Agreement dated 03.08.2024.

e) Corporate Guarantee executed by the 1 respondent in favour of the applicant on 03.08.2024.

f) Personal Guarantee executed by one Anmol Singh Jaggi in favour of the applicant on 03.08.2024.

4. The applicant has lent a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- to the respondent under the aforementioned agreements. According to the applicant, from March 2025 onwards, the respondent has committed default in the repayment of the loan to the applicant under the aforementioned agreements. The applicant also claims that, on account of fraudulent transactions committed by the respondent, SEBI through its interim order dated 15.04.2025 issued interim directions against the respondent and their associate companies. The applicant has also sent a default notice to the respondent on 17.04.2025, pursuant to the interim directions issued by the SEBI through its interim order dated 15.04.2025. No rep