[2026:RJ-JP:17495] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 98/2025 1. Shekharchand Sacheti S/o Shri Kushalchand Sacheti, Aged About 71 Years, R/o C-9, Behind Badhir School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 2. Sudha Sacheti W/o Shri Shekharchand Sacheti, Aged About 60 Years, R/o C-9, Behind Badhir School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 3. Shreyansh Sacheti S/o Shri Shekharchand Sacheti, Aged About 36 Years, R/o C-9, Behind Badhir School, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. ----Applicants Versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 123 Agampa Nichen Gali, Chennai 600001 And Its Corporate Office 245/246, Second Floor, Om Karam Tower, Hanuman Nagar-B, Anirapalli Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan 302021 Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Rajesh Kumar Chudhary. ----Non-Applicant For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 24/04/2026 1. This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arbitration Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. It is stated that a loan agreement was entered into between applicants and non-applicant Finance Company and as per Clause [2026:RJ-JP:17495] (2 of 4) [ARBAP-98/2025] 18 of the loan agreement, the following conditions were laid down : “18. Arbitration and Dispute Settlement a) Without prejudice to the Lander’s right available to it under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, all disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory modification or re-enactment for the time being in force and shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender. The applicable law shall be Indian Laws. In the event of incapacity or resignation or death of the sole arbitrator so appointed, the Lender shall be entitled to appoint another arbitrator in place of the earlier arbitrator, and the proceedings shall continue from the stage at which the predecessor had left. b) The award given by the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement. The cost of the Arbitration shall be borne with by the Party/ies, in accordance with the Award passed by the Arbitrator. c) The venue of Arbitration shall be as specified in Schedule 1 hereto and the proceedings shall be conducted in English language. d) The Borrower and Guarantor hereby agree and confirm that the Lender shall be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 and any amendments there to in order to recover its [2026:RJ-JP:17495] (3 of 4) [ARBAP-98/2025] dues under this Agreement from the Borrower/Guarantor.” 3. It is further stated that the non-applicant on non-payment of the loan installments has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) against the applicants and the District Magistrate, Ajmer vide order dated 03.02.2021 has issued directions for possession of the property in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 4. Learned counsel submits that the property which is being sought to be possessed is more than the property which was mortgaged and therefore, a dispute has arisen between the parties. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. This Court finds that while the clause for initiating arbitral proceedings during the SARFAESI proceedings is part of the agreement entered between the parties, the same can be with respect to a dispute which is not part of the SARFAESI proceedings. Further, this Court also notices that in the order dated 03.02.2021, the property stated to be mortgaged has been clearly mentioned in the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ajmer while passing order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and no additional property has been mentioned. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants that additional property has been directed to be taken into possession is not made out. 7. I am therefore satisfied that there is no dispute which can be said to be referred for arbitration. [2026:RJ-JP:17495] (4 of 4) [ARBAP-98/2025] 8. The present Arbitration Application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is dismissed accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/2