OCD-32 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/477/2026 M/S SANY HEAVY INDUSTRY INDIA PVT LTD VS RAGHVENDRA SINGH AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 10th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Harshita Nath, Adv. …for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. The service report indicates that the respondent no.1 has refused service. Refusal of service is a good service. The respondent no.2 has already been served. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of a Loan-cum- Hyphenation Agreement dated 15.01.2020. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, the SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. had advanced a loan facility to the respondents for the purchase of a hydraulic crawler excavator to the tune of 2 Rs.45,90,000/- repayable in 48 instalments in terms of the agreement dated 15.01.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents defaulted in the repayment of the said loan facility advanced by the petitioner. Consequently, a Demand-cum-recall notice was issued on 31.05.2024 wherein the petitioner called upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.88,74,210.92/-, being the amount due as on 29.02.2024. It is further submitted that the respondents did not respond to the said demand-cum- recall notice which led to the issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking the arbitration clause as contained in the agreement dated 15.01.2020. Despite receipt of the said notice, the respondents did not take any steps for appointment of the Arbitrator for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. It is, prima facie, evident that the respondents had taken the loan facility in terms of the agreement dated 15.01.2020. The respondents defaulted in payment of the said loan leading to the issuance of the demand notice as well as the notice invoking the arbitration. It is now well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. In view of section 11(6A) of the Act ‘the Supreme Court or as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.’ 3 Accordingly, the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act is limited to the extent of satisfying the Court that a valid arbitration agreement containing an arbitration clause exists between the parties. In the present petition, upon perusal of the documents and the submissions advanced by the petitioner, this court is satisfied that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that the disputes have arisen on account of the non-payment of the loan advanced by the petitioner to the respondents. This Court, is, therefore, satisfied that the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Act stand fulfilled and that the disputes between the parties are fit to be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury (Mob No. 8420004467), learned Advocate as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter reference in due compliance with Section 12(5) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. A copy this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator to take necessary steps. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and all 4 other issues are left open to be urged before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp.