JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. 

1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties.

2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 30.01.2026, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for a short accommodation to prepare the case and to address arguments on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the matter submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11 of the Act. In this regard, he referred to the Terms and Conditions and Declaration and Assurance of the letter of loan sanction which has been annexed vide Annexure A-4, which is a translated version of only one paragraph of the aforesaid Declaration and Assurance. He further submitted that the applicant has attached the vernacular of Annexure A-4, which contains the complete Terms and Conditions of the letter of loan sanction as well as the aforesaid Declaration and Assurance. However, there is no other document available with the applicant to show as to whether the parties have signed any agreement or not and as to whether the parties have accepted the said Terms and Conditions as well as the Declaration and Assurance or not but only the aforesaid Terms and Conditions and Declaration and Assurance have been filed along with the present arbitration case.

4. While referring to the aforesaid Declaration and Assurance, he submitted that it has been so provided in the aforesaid Declaration and Assurance that if any dispute arises due to the loan agreement, then it will be put up before the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Company as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Delhi will be the place for arbitration and jurisdiction with regard to investigate and consider this transaction under Arbitration will be Delhi. He referred to the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV versus NHPC Ltd . , (2020) 4 SCC 234 and M/s Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568 to contend that Delhi is merely the venue provided in the agreement and this Court would still have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 11 of the Act since the parties are located in the State of Punjab and the aforesaid Terms and Conditions and Declaration and Assurance were issued from Bathinda, which is in the State of Punjab.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. Firstly, it is to be noted that translated version of Annexure A-4, i.e. Declaration and Assurance, contains only paragraph No.6 and is not a translation of the Terms and Conditions and Declaration and Assurance as a whole. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the applicant has made reference to the vernacular form, which according to him are the entire terms and conditions, which has been attached along with the present application. A perusal of the same would show that there is a seal of the respondent-Company but the column corresponding the signature of the borrower, is blank.

7. During the course of arguments, this Court noted that para No.6, which is the only translated para and which the applicant has attached as Annexure A-4 forms only a part of the purported agreement, has been wrongly translated. Therefore, it will be just and proper to clarify and understand as to what was the actual clause and what the applicant has translated on the basis of which the counsel has made submissions. The translated form of paragraph No.6, which the applicant has attached along with the present arbitration case as Annexure A-4, is reproduced as under:-

“6. In case the declaration made for ownership and purity of the Gold found to be false, then I will keep Muthoot Finance free from t