M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited Vs Jai Mateshwari Steels Private Limited through Its Directors and Ors.

This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered NonBanking Finance Company. The respondents approached the petitioner seeking loan facility to the tune of Rs. 35.31 lakhs. The same was disbursed to the respondents vide a Master Loan Agreement dated 12.01.2023. The respondent No.1 is the principal borrower and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the co-borrowers.

¶13

The said Loan Agreement contained arbitration clause being Clause No. 8.2 which reads as under:-

¶14

“8.2. Arbitration: Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 12:47:58

¶17

representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation, any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement, rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination ("Dispute"), shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Lender. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitrator's decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party, with each Party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration tribunal. Any award by the arbitration tribunal shall be final and binding.”

¶18

Since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 12.06.2025 and thereafter filed the present petition.

¶19

The respondents have been served through email. The email ID of the respondent No.1 is [email protected] and the email ID of the respondent No.4 is [email protected].

¶20

The affidavit of service shows that the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have been served on the said email IDs. Despite service there is nobody appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4. The respondent No.2 has already passed away before filing of the petition and hence, is deleted from the memo of parties.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the respondents have been served.

¶22

Dr. George, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, states that in the

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 12:47:58

¶25

present case, the petition was filed on 02.06.2025 and the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 was served on 12.06.2025 and hence, the petition is not maintainable.

¶26

I am unable to agree with the said contention. Even though the petition may have been lodged with the Registry, Delhi High Court on 02.06.2025, but the petition shows that it was corrected and refiled on 29.07.2025 i.e. the date appearing on the petition. The affidavit as well as the statement of truth are also dated 29.07.2025. Hence, the petition in its complete form was only filed on 29.07.2025 i.e. 30 days after issuance of notice on 12.06.2025. Filing prior to 29.07.2025 was no filing in the eyes of law.

¶27

I am satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration clause and there are dispute between the parties which need to be adjudicated through the arbitral mechanism.

¶28

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

¶29

i) Ms. Monica Batra (Advocate) (Mob. No. 9810275950) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶30

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’).

¶31

iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 12:47:58

¶34

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶35

v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶36

vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶37

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶39

OCTOBER 9, 2025 / (MS)

¶40

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 12:47:58

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited v. Jai Mateshwari Steels Private Limited through Its Directors and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited v. Jai Mateshwari Steels Private Limited through Its Directors and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Buildcon Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) & Anr.

M/S Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Suchitra & Anr.

Kuldeep Gupta Vs M/S Grovy India Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Magnolia Glass Private Limited Vs Pernod Ricard India Private Limited

M/S Dev and Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Xenious Hospitality Private Limited Vs Urest Green Homes Private Limited