Disposed¶26

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Blackberry Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors and Ors.

Delhi HC21 Aug 2025ARB.P./938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; Delhi High Court; ARB.P.; Master Loan Agreement dated 19.10.2020; Arbitration Clause 10.1; seat New Delhi; Section 21 invocation notice 24.04.2025; Fourth Schedule arbitrator fees; Section 12 disclosure; ex parte respondents; Moneywise Financial Services v. BlackBerry Overseas; Justice Jyoti Singh; 21.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 11(6) disposed of by appointing Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; Arbitrator's fee to be fixed as per Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act; disclosure under Section 12 required before entering upon reference; no opinion expressed on merits, rights and contentions left open. ¶26

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Blackberry Overseas… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator ought to be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between the Petitioner and Respondents arising out of the Master Loan Agreement.

¶10

Court's answer

The Master Loan Agreement executed between the parties contains Arbitration Clause 10.1 envisaging reference of disputes arising out of or in connection with the said Agreement to a Sole Arbitrator, with the seat of arbitration designated as New Delhi.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The invocation notice dated 24.04.2025 sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents was duly received.

¶16

Key takeaways

Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Advocate is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.ratio¶23
Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act.ratio¶23
The Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon the reference.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Jyoti Singh, J.), ARB.P. 938/2025, decided 21.08.2025: In a Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petition seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for loan-recovery disputes under a Master Loan Agreement dated 19.10.2020 (loan of Rs. 3,63,911/-; recall notice dated 16.08.2021; invocation notice dated 24.04.2025 under Section 21), the Respondents were set ex parte on continued non-appearance despite service. Finding that Arbitration Clause 10.1 provided for reference of disputes to a Sole Arbitrator with seat at New Delhi and that the invocation notice was duly received, the Court appointed Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator, directed fee fixation per the Fourth Schedule and disclosure under Section 12, expressly leaving all rights, contentions and merits open.

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 938/2025

¶4

M/S MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Mehvish Khan and Mr. Aman Choudhary, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

BLACKBERRY OVERSEAS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 21.08.2025

¶10

This petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶11

As set out in the petition, case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1, through its Directors along with Respondents No. 2 and 3 in their individual capacity as co-borrowers, approached the Petitioner to avail a loan facility to the tune of Rs. 3,63,911/- in October, 2020 for expansion of their business. Petitioner sanctioned the loan in favour of Respondent No. 1 and sum of Rs. 3,63,911/- was disbursed after executing a formal Master Loan Agreement on 19.10.2020.

¶12

It is averred that Respondents breached the terms of the Loan Agreement and Petitioner issued Loan Recall Notice dated 16.08.2021. Respondents paid a sum of Rs. 12,783/- only on 28.04.2022 but no

¶13

ARB.P. 938/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

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 01/09/2025 at 11:54:40

¶16

payments came thereafter and Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause 10.1 by sending a notice dated 24.04.2025 under Section 21 of 1996 Act, however, Respondents failed to consent to the appointment of the Arbitrator. 4. Notice was issued in the petition on 09.07.2025 through all permissible modes, returnable for today. Affidavit of service has been filed by the Petitioner, as per which Respondents have been served through e-mails on e-mail Ids available on the loan documents and the e-mails have not bounced back. This is the second call of the matter. None appears for the Respondents on the second call and none appeared on the first call. It appears that Respondents are not interested in contesting the petition and are accordingly set ex parte . 5. Master Loan Agreement executed between the parties contains an Arbitration Clause 10.1 envisaging reference of disputes arising out of or in connection with the said Agreement to arbitration by Sole Arbitrator with seat of arbitration designated as New Delhi. Invocation notice dated 24.04.2025 was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents and was duly received. For the sake of ready reference, arbitration clause is extracted hereunder:-

¶17

“10.1 Arbitration

¶18

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

ARB.P. 938/2025

Page 2 of 3

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.”

¶23

Accordingly, Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Advocate (Mobile No. 9713413083), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act.

¶24

Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference.

¶25

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.

¶26

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶28

AUGUST 21, 2025 Shivam/Ch

¶29

ARB.P. 938/2025

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 01/09/2025 at 11:54:40

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Blackberry Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Blackberry Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 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

Kec Spur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gail (India) Limited

M/S Madhu Kishan Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Hemkunt Sahib Infrastructure Developers Limited Vs New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc)

M/S. Jarvas Smart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Petpai Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Pvr Inox Limited Vs Shipra Hotels Ltd.

Rotoffset Corporation Vs Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.