Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"12. Arbitration:
If any dispute, difference or claim arises between any of the Obligors and the Lender in connection with the Facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under these T&Cs or alleged breach of the Facility Documents or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.337 of 2023 anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration by a sole arbitration to be appointed as per the procedure below and to be held at such place as agreed by the Parties in Serial No.17 of Annexure 1 hereto of the Agreement.

3. As far as the jurisdiction is concerned, the parties have mutually agreed to confer jurisdiction on Courts in Chennai. The petitioner is having its Head https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.337 of 2023 Office in Bombay and Regional Office in Chennai. The respondents are from Kerala.

4. The petitioner had sent a Loan Recall Notice dated 13.04.2023 to the respondents and also invoked Arbitration Clause under the aforesaid Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 29.01.2022.

6. The aforesaid Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 29.01.2022 also incorporates Master Terms and Conditions registered on 31.12.2018 with the Joint Sub-Registrar at Mumbai under Registration No.BBE-3-10160-2018. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.337 of 2023

7. The petition is contested by the respondents on the ground that there is no territorial nexus between the cause of action and business within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that this petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement (Channel Finance) dated 29.01.2022 was signed between the petitioner and the respondents in Kerala and that the respondents are from Kerala.

8. The petitioner is from Mumbai and thus, in respect of the alleged defaults made by the respondents, there is no cause of auction for invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court.

9. In this connection, the learned counsel for the first and third respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Ravi Ranjan developers Private Limited Vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 329 wherein, it has been stated that the parties cannot, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.337 of 2023