O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of a Loan Agreement dated 14th August, 2020.

2. Notice had been issued to the respondents on the last date of hearing.

3. As per the Office Noting, the respondents stand served by E-mail sent by the Registry. Further, affidavit of service has also been filed by the petitioner, showing the proof of service to the respondents.

4. However, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, despite service.

5. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to deal with the matter.

6. As per the facts on record, the respondents approached the petitioner for availing a mortgage loan. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner disbursed a loan of Rs.19,92,638/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Ninety-Two Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty-Eight), which had to be repaid in 180 equal monthly instalments. However, the respondents failed to comply with the repayment terms and conditions, as stipulated in the Loan Agreement.

7. As per the statement of account maintained by the petitioner, the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,03,504/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Four), as on 09th December, 2024. Constrained by the continued default of the terms of the Loan Agreement, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide Notice dated 09th December, 2024, sent under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, and sought consent of the respondents to appoint a sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The same was duly served upon the respondents.

8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the arbitration clause between the parties, contained in Clause 28 of the Loan Agreement, which is reproduced as under:

9. Perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, which stipulates the reference of disputes between the parties to a sole Arbitrator, in accordance with the arbitration mechanism provided therein.

10. Further, it has been agreed between the parties that the Courts of Mumbai or Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction and that the place of arbitration shall be either Mumbai or Delhi. The petitioner has chosen Delhi to be the place of arbitration, which is a valid choice as per the arbitration clause between the parties. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, in terms of the aforesaid clause 28 between the parties.

11. This Court notes that the petitioner has an approximate claim of Rs. 20,03,504/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Four).

12. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that there are disputes between the parties and a valid arbitration clause exists, as per which, the disputes are to be adjudicated by way of arbitration.

13. Accordingly, there is no impediment in appointing a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The following directions are issued in this regard:

i. Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Advocate, (Mobile No.: 9873940695) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

ii. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.

iii. The Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, prior to entering into the reference. In the event that there is any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment, on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

iv. It shall be open to the respondents to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceeds.

v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, the arbitrability of any of the claims and/or counter-claims, any other preliminary objection, as well