JUDGMENT

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the A&C Act’) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the factual matrix is identical in these petitions and the petitioner (in each of the petitions) raises similar grounds of challenge against the common respondents. In the above circumstances, it is considered apposite to dispose of the petitions by way of a common order.

3. The present petitions have been filed in the backdrop of two Home Loan Agreements dated 31.03.2018, executed between the petitioner and respondents. In terms of the aforesaid agreements, the petitioner vide Loan Account Nos. 833321 (in Arb. P. 827/2024) and 830976 (in Arb. P. 828/2024) sanctioned Rs.1,24,00,000/- and Rs.2,76,00,000/- respectively, in favour of the respondents.

4. The said home loans were disbursed in favour of the respondents against mortgaged property bearing no.Flat No. 702, Area Admeasuring 272.31 sq. Mtrs., 7th Floor, Survey No. To 86/1/112, Cts No. 2024 Part, Bldg No. D, Montecito, Parvati, Pune, Maharashtra, 411009.

5. The Standard Terms and Conditions that govern the agreements executed between the parties contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:

“The Borrower and IIFL HFC agrees that agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws in force in India and in the event that any dispute or difference should arise between the parties in performance, interpretation and/or application with respect to the present agreement including but not limited as to any amount outstanding and/or on any matter relating to or arising out of the present agreement the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator to be appointed by IIFL HFC whose decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties.”

6. Disputes arose between the parties on account of alleged default on the part of the respondents in paying the requisite instalments. The respondents failed to make the payment despite being granted opportunities to clear the outstanding dues.

7. It is submitted that despite repeated reminders, since respondents continued defaulting the EMI, the petitioner issued notice/s under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for repayment of the outstanding amount. Subsequently, the mortgaged property was auctioned for realising the outstanding loan amount. It is stated that upon adjusting the amount recovered by way of auctioning the mortgaged property, a sum of Rs. 1,16,13,945.79/- (in ARB. P. 827/2024) and Rs.33,72,850.11/- (in ARB. P. 828/2024) remains to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner on account of ‘loss in the loan accounts’.

8. Since the disputes between the parties persisted, the petitioner issued demand notices dated 09.03.2023 followed by notices on 04.07.2023 for invocation of arbitration. However, since the respondents failed to respond, the petitioner vide letter dated 20.07.2024 proceeded to appoint Mr. Mithilesh Jha [District Judge (Retd.)] as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Consequently, the learned Sole Arbitrator entered into reference.

9. It is submitted that although the respondents entered appearance, an application was preferred by the respondents before the learned Sole Arbitrator inter-alia raising objection as regards to his jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

10. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sole Arbitrator for withdrawal of the arbitration proceedings pending before him. Vide order dated 20.04.2024, the said application was accepted by the learned Sole Arbitrator, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach High Court for adjudication of dispute/s. The aforesaid order reads as under:

“Today, the counsel for the Claimant has filed an Application for withdrawal of the Claim Petition with the liberty to approach the Hon'ble