OD-15 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE AP/137/2026 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS NARENDRA KUMAR JHA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 8th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Aharnish Ghosh, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Subir Banerjee, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: 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 and differences between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement bearing No. 8502488 dated 6th March, 2023. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had sanctioned a loan of Rs.15,29,275/- to the respondent repayable in 60 monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum. According to the petitioner, the respondent committed defaults in repayment, resulting in an outstanding amount of Rs.9,49,348/- as on 20.04.2026. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that Clause 9 of the Loan Agreement contains an arbitration clause providing for reference of 2 disputes to a sole Arbitrator with Kolkata being the agreed place of arbitration. Clause 14 confers jurisdiction upon this Court, subject to Clause 9. The petitioner invoked the arbitration proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 28.05.2026 to the respondent, calling upon the respondent to clear the outstanding amount and to take steps for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Despite service, the respondent did not respond to the said notice neither took any steps for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the quantum of claim by the petitioner is disputed. Learned Counsel for the respondent however neither disputes the existence of the arbitration agreement nor the arbitration clause as contained in the said agreement. The petitioner has duly invoked the arbitration clause and the respondent has failed to act in accordance therewith. 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. As per 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, at this stage, this Court is required to examine the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and whether the statutory conditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) are satisfied. The Loan Agreement contains an expressed arbitration clause. The disputes and differences have arisen between the parties out of the loan agreement. The objection of the respondent regarding the quantum of the claim does not negate the existence of the arbitration agreement containing an arbitration clause. In view of the same, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Act stands fulfilled and that the disputes between the parties are fit to be referred to arbitration. Thus, this Court is inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act and appoints Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Advocate (Mob. No. 9830143023) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement bearing No. 8502488 dated 6th March, 2023. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after making the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned sole Arbitrator for necessary action. 4 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.Bhar