The court grants an application for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when a valid arbitration agreement exists and the respondent remains ex-parte despite service of notice.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator due to a dispute arising from a loan agreement dated 26.11.2019. The court noted that notice had been served on the respondents, who failed to appear and were set ex-parte. The petitioner had also served a notice under Section 21 of the Act. The issue for the court was whether to exercise its powers under the Act to appoint an arbitrator in the absence of a response from the respondents. The court held that, given the existence of the arbitration clause in the loan agreement and the lack of opposition, it was appropriate to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the underlying commercial dispute. The court allowed the petition and formally appointed an advocate as the sole arbitrator, authorizing her to fix fees as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act and requested an expeditious resolution.

Table of Content
1. establishing the court's jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator where the counterparty is ex-parte. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. exercise of court authority to appoint a sole arbitrator and direct the determination of fees. (Para 5 , 6)

O R D E R

This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(5) &

(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement dated

26.11.2019.

2. Heard Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Inspite of notice having been served upon the respondents, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Their names were printed in the cause list. They were called absent and are set ex-parte.

4. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been issued by the petitioner on 27.05.2025. Inspite of the same, the respondents have not chosen to respond. From a reading of the Loan Agreement dated 26.11.2019 entered to between the petitioner and the respondents, it could be seen that the parties have agreed to resolve the disputes by appointing an Arbitrator.

5. In view of the Loan Agreement and considering the nature of claim, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, Ms.S.Shanthakumari, Advocate, (Mobile No.98402 26626) having office at No.93, Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai – 600 104 and residing at Sri Kannabiran Nilayam, No.5, Gandhi / Kanakkar Street, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents.

6. The learned Sole Arbitrator is entitled to fix her fees as per the Schedule-IV of the Act. This Court further requests the learned Sole Arbitrator to endeavour to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is ordered. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKumaresh Babu, JFive Star Business Finance Limited – AppellantVersusSrinivas K.K – RespondentArbitration Original Petition

The court grants an application for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when a valid arbitration agreement exists and the respondent remains ex-parte despite service of notice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Kumaresh Babu, J
Five Star Business Finance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Srinivas K.K – Respondent
Arbitration Original Petition