Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3619 (RAJ)

BAID FINSERV LTD. v. JAGDISH S/O NANAGRAM,

ARBAP/81/2025 · 2026-04-13

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:15367] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 81/2025 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 Nakul Singh Shekhawat. ----Applicant Versus Jagdish S/o Nanagram, R/o Plot No. 9, Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Gram-Nevta, Teh.-Sanganer, Dist-Jaipur-302029 (Raj.). ----Non-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal (through V.C.) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Teeka Ram Meena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 13/04/2026 1. The present arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1996”) has been filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute regarding the loan alleged to have been released to the respondent who in reply to the application disputes the amount alleged to have been released. 2. There is a dispute arisen between the parties, which is to be resolved in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement, which reads as under: “16. Arbitration, Jurisdiction & Governing Law: All claims, disputes or differences whatsoever which may at any time hereafter arise between the parties hereto concerning this agreement or its construction of effect or as to the rights, duties, obligations of [2026:RJ-JP:15367] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-81/2025] 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 being in force. The place of arbitration shall be Jaipur. The provision of this agreement relating to arbitration shall not prejudice the company’s rights to take criminal proceedings against the borrower and/or any other proceedings which would by their nature not be subject to the arbitration provisions of this agreement. This agreement and the relationship between the parties shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of India.” 3. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr. Arun Kumar Pareek (Retd. District & Sessions Judge), R/o Flat No.102, D-2-A, Kamal Vrandavan Apartment, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302016 to act as Sole Arbitrator and to decide all issues without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised in the present application. The arbitration fees shall be determined in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1996, as amended. The fee of the Arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. The place of arbitration shall be at Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:15367] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-81/2025] 4. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act of 1996. 5. The arbitration application is allowed accordingly. 6. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed Sole Arbitrator. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/21