JUDGMENT(ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Home Equity Agreement [“HEA”] dated 30.10.2019, and the Additional Facility Agreement [“AFA”] dated 29.08.2020, which was executed pursuant to the HEA.

2. The Arbitration Clause, being Clause 12, envisaged in the HEA reads as under:

“12. Dispute Resolution

If any dispute or differences or claim arises between the obligors and the lender in connection with the facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the facility Documents or alleged breach of the facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Mumbai/Delhi/Kolkata/Chennai as may be decided by the lender in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereto and shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English language. Cost of arbitration shall be borne by the obligors."

3. Arbitration Clause, being Clause 11, envisaged in the AFA reads as under:

"11. Dispute Resolution

If any dispute or differences or claim arises between the obligors and the lender in connection with the facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under the facility Documents or alleged breach of the facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration to be held at place as mentioned at serial no 13 of annexure 1 hereto in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereto and shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English language. Cost of arbitration shall be borne by the obligors."

4. Material on record reflects that a notice invoking Arbitration under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 31.01.2025.

5. A perusal of the Order dated 17.03.2026 reveals that the Respondents have been duly served and that an opportunity was given to the Respondents to enter appearance. However, none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents even today.

6. This Court is of the view that considering the fact that the Respondents stand duly served and have chosen not to participate in the present proceedings, there arises no impediment in referring the disputes raised herein to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

7. This Court notes the contents of the Order dated 16.02.2026, wherein the aspect of the unilateral preference of proceedings by parties such as the Petitioner herein was flagged. While in the present case, it would appear that the parties, as well as the property, are situated in Delhi, the Petition and the arbitration proceedings can be held in Delhi.

8. However, the question as to whether the Courts at Delhi will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings based on an unilateral invocation of jurisdiction in terms of a clause which provides for arbitration to be held at multiple places, but no agreement of the parties is expressly set out therein, is left open.

9. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the legal position governing the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish