Facts
The petitioner, an RBI-registered non-banking financial company, stated that respondent No. 1 had borrowed under a Loan Agreement dated 23 February 2024 and defaulted, giving rise to disputes.
Source reference: p. 3The agreement provided for arbitration before a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with proceedings in Bengaluru and in English.
Source reference: p. 3–5The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 13 May 2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; receiving no response, it petitioned under Section 11(5) for appointment of an arbitrator.
Source reference: p. 3, 5The respondents raised no objection to the appointment and asked that all contentions be left open.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Loan Agreement.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 62. Whether the parties’ claims and contentions should remain open for determination in arbitration.
Source reference: p. 5, 7Law Applied
Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the basis for court appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure requires mutual appointment and the parties do not make that appointment. Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Source reference: p. 3–5The Court also applied the parties’ arbitration agreement, which referred disputes to a mutually appointed sole arbitrator and specified Bengaluru as the place of proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3–5Reasoning
The Court found that the Loan Agreement contained arbitration clauses covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had invoked those clauses by issuing a Section 21 notice.
Source reference: p. 6In light of those circumstances—and the respondents’ stated lack of objection to appointment—the Court concluded that a sole arbitrator should be appointed. It left the parties’ substantive claims and contentions for determination in arbitration.
Source reference: p. 5–7Holding
The Court allowed the petition and appointed retired District Judge Sri Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya as sole arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under its rules.
All claims and contentions were left open; the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 12 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
Source reference: p. 7Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
JAYSHREE CREDIT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITEDvsJOULESHEALTH ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
