IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Dhanraj N Kochar .... Petitioner Vs.

1.L.Dhandapani

2.D.Divya .... Respondents Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and decide the disputes between the parties in accordance with Clause 8 of the Sale Agreement dated

16.12.2019 entered into between the petitioner and first respondent.

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Dipthi Munoth For Respondents : Mr.U.Vasudevan *****

ORDER

When this petition came up for admission on 25.10.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“This petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as “A and C Act”] vide Sale Agreement dated 16.12.2019.

2. The agreement provides for referring the dispute for Arbitration under clause 8 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

“8. In case of any dispute/differences, then the same has to be resolved by way of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, appointment of sole Arbitrator, Seat shall be Chennai, language be English and award shall be final & binding on all parties herein.”

3. The trigger notice under Section 21 of A and C Act was issued on 07.07.2025 and the same has also been received by the respondents. Since there was no response, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Issue notice to the respondents returnable by

24.11.2025. Private notice is also permitted. 5. Post this case for hearing on 24.11.2025.”

2. After service of notice, respondents were represented through counsel. They took time for production of the original agreement. When the matter came up on 09.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“When the matter was taken up for hearing today, a memo was filed by learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that he is no longer appearing for respondents and that he has already given change of vakalath.

2. Mr.U.Vasudevan, learned counsel, submitted that he is coming by way of change of vakalath for the respondents and sought some time.

3. This petition has already been adjourned thrice. This Court had directed learned counsel for respondents to produce the original agreement to verify the stand taken by respondents as if the agreement does not contain an arbitration clause. For some reason, the respondents are not producing the original agreement. However, since a new counsel has entered appearance, this Court will grant one opportunity to learned counsel for respondents.

4. Post on 12.01.2026. On that date, learned counsel for respondents shall produce the original agreement before this Court. On failure to do so, this Court will proceed further and pass final orders in this petition.

Registry is directed to delete the name of Mr.M.Raja Sekhar and print the name of Mr.U.Vasudevan, learned counsel for respondents.”

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for respondents sought some more time to produce the original agreement.

4. Even in the previous order passed on 09.01.2026, this Court made it clear that if the original agreement is not produced on the side of respondents, this Court will have no other alternative except to pass final orders. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass final orders in this petition.

5. In the considered view of this Court, based on the original agreement produced by the petitioner, there is a valid agreement between the parties in line with Section 7 of the Act and the agreement contains an arbitration clause. This Court cannot look into anything beyond these pre- requisites. If, according to respondents, there is a discrepancy in the original agreement itself and that there was no valid agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause, the same can also be raised before the Sole Arbitrator and the same will be decided on its own merits and in accordance