OCD-48 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/644/2026 M/S UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED VS CNVRS8 INTEGRATED PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 21st September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. K. K. Pandey, Adv Ms. Sonia Nandy, Adv. Ms. Mallika Bothra, Adv. …for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears for the respondents. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an independent and impartial sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the facility agreement dated 12.02.2025. The petitioner is a registered Non-Banking Financial Service Company within the meaning of the Reserved Bank of India Act, 1934 and is engaged in the business of providing financial assistance to its customers. According to the petitioner, the respondents approached the petitioner for grant of a business loan pursuant to which the parties entered into the facility agreement dated 12.02.2025. Under the said agreement, the petitioner 2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,35,400/- in favour of the respondents who agreed to repay the same in equated monthly instalments and undertook to remain jointly and severally liable for repayment of the entire loan amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents committed persistent default in repayment of the said instalments. Consequently, by notice dated 09.05.2026, the petitioner terminated the loan agreement dated 12.02.2025 and recalled the entire loan facility and called upon the respondents to make payment of an aggregate sum of Rs.18,17,169/-. As the respondents failed to comply with the demand, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 12.06.2026. It is further contended by the petitioner that the respondents replied to the said notice on 25.06.2026, declining to proceed in terms of the arbitration agreement and instead disputed the very mechanism of the arbitral proceedings as contemplated under the said agreement. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that a valid loan facility agreement had been entered into between the parties. The petitioner had duly sanctioned the loan to the respondents. The respondents defaulted in repayment of the said loan. The petitioner had invoked the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 18 of the Facility Agreement dated 12.02.2025, the existence of the same is not in dispute. The disputes sought to be referred have arisen out of the said agreement. The petitioner had duly invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 12.06.2026 under Section 21 of the Act, although the respondents declined to proceed in aaccordance with the agreed mechanism, they neither proposed any 3 alternate mechanism for resolution of the disputes nor participated in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Consequently, no arbitral tribunal has been constituted in terms of the agreement. In the facts of the present case, 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 Act. 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.’’ Accordingly, the scope of examination under Section 11 of the Act is confined to the existence of a valid agreement containing a valid arbitration clause. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that live disputes have arisen thereunder requiring adjudication through arbitration. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Soumik Ganguli Advocate, (Mobile No. 9831189364) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 4 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. 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.) S. A. AR (CR)