OCD-15 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/674/2026 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS FAISAL AHMAD AND ANR BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 23rd September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Aharnish Ghosh, Adv. ..for the petitioner 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 arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 31st October, 2023 entered into between the parties. The petitioner, Tata Capital Limited, is the successor-in-interest of Tata Capital Finance Limited pursuant to the scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai by an order dated 24th November, 2023 with effect from 1st January, 2024. The petitioner had sanctioned financial assistance in form of Loan- Cum-Hypothecation facility for a sum of Rs.23,76,298/- to the respondents 2 for the purchase of a vehicle under the loan agreement dated 31st October, 2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents paid a few instalments but thereafter committed defaults in repayment, resulting in an event of default under the said agreement. Upon such default, the petitioner issued a notice dated 28th May, 2026, calling upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.15,88,229/- stated to be outstanding as on 16th April, 2026. The said notice also invoked the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 13 of the loan agreement and called upon the respondents to take steps for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Clause 13 provides for resolution of the dispute by a Sole Arbitrator and prescribes the procedure for appointment of the Arbitrator. The said Clause further provides that the seat of arbitration shall be at Kolkata. It is the petitioner’s contention that the said notice under Section 21 of the Act was not replied to by the respondents nor did they take any steps for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The arbitration agreement contained in Clause 13 is not in dispute. The existence of a live dispute between the parties is also apparent from the material placed before this Court. The petitioner’s notice dated 28th May, 2026 constitutes a valid invocation of the arbitration agreement. Since the respondents failed to either respond to the said notice or take steps for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties is evident from the Loan Agreement. The disputes raised by the petitioner 3 arises directly out of the said loan transaction and are covered by the arbitration agreement. The petitioner has duly invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act. However, the respondents have failed to act in accordance with the agreed procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator. 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. In view of the same, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Act stand fulfilled and that the disputes between the parties are fit to be referred to arbitration. 4 Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Advocate (Mobile No. 9903836098) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties out of the loan agreement dated 31st October, 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. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, maintainability, 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.) bp.