Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nakoda Electronic and Mobile and Ors.

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties, arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 30^th September, 2023 (“Loan Agreement”).

¶14

This Court notes that the respondents have already been served. However, none appears for the respondents when the matter has been called out.

¶15

It is further noted that, on the last date of hearing, this Court had

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 11/05/2026 at 13:44:03

¶19

granted liberty to the petitioner to re-serve the Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, invoking Arbitration, upon the respondents. The relevant portion of the last order, i.e., 23^rd March, 2026, reads as under:

¶20

“xxx xxx xxx

¶21

4. On pointed query by this Court with regard to the compliance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Document-5, which is letter dated 29^th March, 2025. However, there is no tracking report before this Court with regard to service of the said notice to the respondents.

¶22

5. On pointed query by this Court as to whether the said notice has been served though E-mail, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no E-mail was sent.

¶23

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted liberty to re-serve the notice dated 29^th March, 2025, invoking arbitration.

¶24

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to issue notice dated 29^th March, 2025 to the respondent through E-mail, which is mentioned in the said notice, including through other modes, as permissible.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act has also been served upon the respondents through E-mail, which has been duly served upon them on 30^th April, 2026. Further, no response has been filed by the respondents towards the same.

¶27

Since none appears for the respondents despite service of notice, and no reply has been filed in the present matter on their behalf, this Court proceeds with the matter.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner had granted loan of Rs. 30,26,787/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 11/05/2026 at 13:44:03

¶32

and Eighty-Seven Only) to the respondents by way of the said Loan Agreement. Further, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the said Loan Agreement, the respondents were bound to repay the said loan amount in 36 equated monthly instalments, along with the agreed rate of interest @ 18.25% per annum.

¶33

It is submitted that disputes arose between the parties as the respondents failed to make the payments of several instalments as agreed between the parties, and therefore, the said instalments became due and payable by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner owing to such default, vide the Loan Recall Notice dated 13^th March, 2025, recalled the loan facility from the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to the nonpayment of the outstanding amounts, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 8.2 in the Loan Agreement, by issuing a Notice dated 29^th March, 2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, which has now been re-served via E-mail on 30^th April, 2026.

¶35

As recorded above, the said Notice stands duly served upon the respondents, and no response was filed by respondents.

¶36

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Clause 8.2 of the Loan Agreement, which reads as under:

¶37

“xxx xxx xxx

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 11/05/2026 at 13:44:03

¶41

xxx xxx xxx”

¶42

Perusal of the aforesaid Arbitration Clause clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, whereby, the parties have agreed that the disputes shall be settled by arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Further, the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi.

¶43

This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has an approximate claim of Rs. 27,73,697/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven Only).

¶44

Therefore, in view of the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties as well as the disputes that have arisen between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no impediment in appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶45

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the following directions are issued:

¶46

i) Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Advocate, (Mob: +91-9910200994) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶47

ii) The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.

¶48

iii) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

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 11/05/2026 at 13:44:03

¶52

Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

¶53

iv) It shall be open to the respondents to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceedings.

¶54

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.

¶55

vi) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from today.

¶56

Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶57

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance.

¶59

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶60

MAY 6, 2026/ SK

¶61

Page 5 of 5

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

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 11/05/2026 at 13:44:03

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Nakoda Electronic and Mobile and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Nakoda Electronic and Mobile 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

Alaxender John & Anr. Vs Gaurav Newton John & Anr.

Baptist Church Karol Bagh (Estd. 1916) and Anr. Vs Baptist Union of North India (Regd.) and Ors.

Baptist Church Trust Association and Anr. Vs Rev. Dinesh Das

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Durga Tradelinks and Ors.

Rajesh Goel Vs Quickship Global Express Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Sharma Enterprises Vs Hindustan Prefab Limited & Anr.