[2025:RJ-JP:25392] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 120/2024 Baid Finserv Ltd., (Formerly Known As Baid Leasing And Finance Company) Having Registered Office At Plot No.1, Baid House, 2Nd Floor, Tara Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302006 Through Its Authorized Representative Dinesh Sharma ----Applicants Versus 1. Prabhu Narayan Ajmera S/o Shri Choturam Ajmera, R/o 1, Ajmera Farm, Gram Sukhiya, Rampura Road, Tehsil Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Ramesh Ajmera S/o Shri Prabhu Narayan Ajmera, R/o 1, Ajmera Farm, Gram Sukhiya, Rampura Road, Tehsil Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Suresh Ajmera S/o Shri Prabhu Narayan Ajmera, R/o 1, Ajmera Farm, Gram Sukhiya, Rampura Road, Tehsil Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Non-Applicants/respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal For Respondent(s) : None JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/07/2025 1. The instant Arbitration Application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘Act of 1996’) has been filed by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of the loan agreement dated 11.05.2018 containing arbitration clause 12.1, which reads as under:- “Arbitration Clause 12.1: 12.1 All claims, disputes or differences whatsoever which may at any time hereafter arise between the parties hereto concerning this agreement or its [2025:RJ-JP:25392] (2 of 5) [ARBAP-120/2024] construction of effect or as to the rights, duties, obligations of liabilities of the parties hereto or either or them under or by virtue of or in connection with this agreement or any document executed or security created pursuant there to or otherwise as to any other manner in any way connected with or arising out of or in relation to the subject matter to this agreement (including, without limitation, enforcement of security) shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator appointed by the company. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time bring in force. The place of arbitration shall be as mentioned in serial no (15) of the schedule”. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that certain amount was borrowed by the non-applicants and the same was not repaid by them, hence a dispute has arisen between the parties and by invoking the arbitration clause, contained under the loan agreement, the Arbitrator was appointed. Counsel submits that the non-applicant/ respondent did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and therefore, an ex-parte award was passed by the arbitrator on 19.09.2020. Counsel submits that an execution application was filed by the applicant under Section 36 of the Act of 1996, before the Commercial Court No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan- II, who dismissed the same on the ground that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of TRF Ltd. Versus Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.: reported in AIR 2017 SC 3099 and Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in 2017 (4) SCC 665, the interested party to the lis is not authorized to appoint the Arbitrator and unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of TRF Ltd. (Supra) and Voestalpine Schienen (Supra), the award [2025:RJ-JP:25392] (3 of 5) [ARBAP-120/2024] passed by the Arbitrator was set aside vide order dated 15.07.2023. After rejection of the execution application, the applicant filed an application before the Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, which was accepted by the Commercial Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 and a direction was issued to the non-applicant/respondent to maintain status quo over the secured property. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, since the respondents have not given consent for appointment of the Arbitrator, the instant application has been submitted under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that certain amount was borrowed by the non-applicants for which a loan agreement was executed between the parties on 11.05.2018 and when the said borrowed amount was not refunded, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause and an Arbitrator was appointed, who passed an ex-parte award on 19.09.2020 and the execution application was rejected by the Commercial Court vide order dated 15.07.2023 in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of TRF Ltd. (Supra) and Voestalpine Schienen (Supra), therefore, the non-applicant/ respondent was directed vide order dated 09.07.2024 to maintain the status quo over the secured property in the application filed by the applicant under section 9 of the Act of 1996. [2025:RJ-JP:25392] (4 of 5) [ARBAP-120/2024] 5. This Court finds that the dispute raised between the parties with regard to non-refund of the borrowed amount by the non- applicants, is required to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. 6. In view of the reasons stated above, the instant application stands allowed and this Court appoints Dr. Rajendra Singh Chuadhary (Retd. District Judge) Resident of 10, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur, Mobile No. 9414283664, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate/resolve the dispute between the parties. 7. The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject of declaration being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') with respect to the independence and impartiality and ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration proceedings within the prescribed period. 8. The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of Procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended by the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4th schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of parties. 9. The Registry is directed to intimate the Arbitrator-Dr. Rajendra Singh Chuadhary (Retd. District Judge) Resident of 10, Mahaveer Nagar-II, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur, Mobile No. 9414283664 for his approval and declaration in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act of 1996. [2025:RJ-JP:25392] (5 of 5) [ARBAP-120/2024] 10. All issues raised by the parties before the Arbitrator shall be considered in accordance with law. 11. Since as per Section 29A of the Act of 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within the scheduled time as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 25.07.2025 or on any other date as informed by the Arbitrator subject to agreement by the parties. Furthermore, the parties shall provide their respective E-mail/ contact number/ mobile number and/or also of their authorized representatives/ Lawyers appearing on their behalf before the Arbitration Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information/communication to the parties, whenever required. The information send by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E-mail/ cellphone of the parties or to their authorized representatives/ Lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient communication unless same is not changed. 12. Accordingly, the present arbitration application stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/201