$~10

*

+

O R D E R

% 22.04.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 27th October, 2022, owing to default in repayment of loan by the respondent.

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

3. As per the Office Noting, the respondent stands served through E-mail by the Registry of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an affidavit of service, in order to show that service upon the respondent, has been effected through WhatsApp, as well as E-mail. He confirms the fact that service through said modes has been done on the valid E-mail and Mobile Number, which had been submitted by the respondent himself in the loan application.

5. Accordingly, service to the respondent is complete. However, none appears for the respondent when the matter is called out.

6. Thus, this Court proceeds to deal with the present petition.

7. As per the petitioner, the respondent had availed a loan facility of Rs. 15,05,240/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs Five Thousand Two Hundred and Forty) under the aforesaid Loan Agreement. As per the terms of Agreement, the respondent was under an obligation to repay the loan amount along with interest in 60 equated monthly installments. However, the respondent made irregular payments, which resulted in default of his repayment obligations under the Loan Agreement.

8. In view thereof, the petitioner recalled the loan issued to the respondent and invoked the arbitration clause of the Loan Agreement, i.e., Clause 14, by way of a letter dated 07th February, 2024, sent under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.

9. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Clause 14 of the said Loan Agreement, which contains the arbitration clause in the following manner:

“

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

10. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties, as per which, the venue as well as the juridical seat of arbitration shall be either Delhi or Mumbai. Thus, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

11. At this stage, this Court notes the letter dated 07th February, 2024 of the petitioner under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, along with which, the petitioner has also placed on record the speed post receipts, in order to show that the said letter had been dispatched. Though proof of service of the said letter has not been placed on record, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Adavya Projects Private Limited Versus Vishal Structurals Private Limited and Others, (2025) 9 SCC 686, particularly upon Paras 46 and 47, which read as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

46. While we agree with the decision in Alupro Building Systems [Alupro Building Systems (P) Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas (P) Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228] insofar as holding that the notice under Section 21 is mandatory, unless the contract provides otherwise, we do not agree with the conclusion that non-service of such notice on a party nullifies the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction over him. The purpose of the Section 21 notice is clear — by fixing the date of commencement of arbitration, it enables the calculation of limitation and it is a necessary precondition for filing an application under Section 11 ACA. The other purposes served by such notice — of informing the respondent about the claims, giving the respondent an opportunity to admit and contest claims and raise counterclaims, and to object to proposed arbitrators — are only incidental and secondary. We have already held that the contents of the notice do not restrict the claims, and any objections regarding limitation and maintainability can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, and the ACA provides mechanisms for challenging the appointment of arbitrators on various g