OCD- 35 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/596/2026 L AND T FINANCE LIMITED VS PIYUSH JAISWAL AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date :5th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Adv. S. Hussain, Adv. Pujal Husahib, Adv. …for petitioner. The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen out of the SME Business Loan Agreement dated 4th April, 2025. The petitioner states that under the aforesaid business loan agreement, it sanctioned an amount of Rs.20,15,437/- in favour of the respondents as business loan. According to the petitioner, the respondents committed persistent defaults in repayment of the monthly installment and other obligation under the agreement. Consequently, the petitioner issued a loan 2 recall notice dated 16.10.2025 calling upon the respondents to pay the outstanding dues. It is the case of the petitioner that the arbitration clause is contained in the SME Business Loan Agreement. The petitioner had invoked the same by issuing notice under Section 21 of the said Act dated 14th April, 2026. She further states that the notice was duly served upon the respondents though the respondents neither responded to the said notice nor took any steps for constitution of the arbitral tribunal within the stipulated period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that clause 8 of the Business Loan Agreement provides for resolution of dispute through arbitration in Kolkata as the seat of arbitration. It is submitted that despite invocation of the arbitral proceedings, no steps have been taken by the respondents. This Court considered the submission advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the materials placed on record. The existence of the arbitration agreement contained in clause 8 of the SME Business Loan Agreement dated 4th April, 2025 is not in dispute. The dispute sought to be referred arise out of the said agreement. The arbitration agreement invoked by the petitioner was by duly issuing notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dated 14th April, 2026. Admittedly no arbitrator has been appointed pursuant thereto. In this circumstance, this Court is satisfied that the agreed procedure for appointment of arbitrator has failed thereby warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3 In view of the said findings, this Court is of the prima facie view that this case is a fit case for appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Rohit Mukherji, Advocate (Mob. No. 8930043887) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 4th April, 2025. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference making the disclosure with Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed between the parties. A copy of 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 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.) R.D. Barua