Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S Electronica Finance Ltd vs Golden Industries And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1476 Cal/2

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1476 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

M/S Electronica Finance Ltd vs Golden Industries And Ors on 26 February, 2026

Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD 6
                              ORDER SHEET
                            AP-COM/964/2025
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                          COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                              ORIGINAL SIDE


                      M/S ELECTRONICA FINANCE LTD
                                  VS
                      GOLDEN INDUSTRIES AND ORS.


 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
 Date: 26th February, 2026.

                                                                         Appearance:
                                                             Ms. Sormi Dutta, Adv.
                                                           Mr. S. Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                          Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Adv.
                                                                Mr. S. Biswas, Adv.
                                                               . . .for the petitioner.


    The Court:

    1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

    2. By the order dated February 3, 2026, this Court had directed that a

        notice be served upon the respondents along with the copy of the order

dated February 3, 2026, indicating that the matter will be taken up on

26th February, 2026 and if the respondents failed to appear, the matter

would proceed.

3. Such notice along with the copy of the order has been duly served.

None appears despite service.

4. The petitioner is a non-banking financial company. The petitioner prays

for appointment of an Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes arising

out of the term loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 16 th

December, 2022. The case run by the petitioner is that the respondents

approached the petitioner for a loan, for the expansion of the business

of the respondent no.1. The respondents nos. 2, 3 and 5 agreed to

stand as a guarantors. The petitioner agreed to provide loan for an

amount of Rs.44,36,800/- and a Term Loan-cum-Hypothecation

Agreement was entered into between the parties. For the purpose of

securing the loan, the machines were hypothecated to the petitioner.

The said machines were installed at the premises of the respondent no.1

at Rajkot, Gujarat. The loan was to be liquidated in 60 monthly

instalments, but the respondent had paid the 1 st to 14th instalment and

thereafter failed to pay the remaining instalments. The last payment

was made on May 5, 2024.

5. On February 24, 2025 the petitioner issued a demand notice to the

respondents calling upon the respondents to pay up the remaining

amount. The notice was issued from the office of the petitioner situated

within the jurisdiction of this Court. The payment was to be received by

the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Calcutta for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the

machines. The Receiver was appointed. However, the Receiver could

not find the machines at the address. The petitioners have a claim of

more than Rs. 41 lakhs.

7. A notice invoking arbitration was issued on July 1, 2025 under Section

21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The loan was recalled

and the agreement was terminated. The petitioner has specifically

pleaded how this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.

8. The petitioner suggested names of three Arbitrators. The petitioner also

indicated that the place of arbitration shall be Kolkata. By the said

letter, the petitioner also invited objections, if any, from the respondents

with regard to the choice of Arbitrator and the venue. Clause 11.4 of

the said agreement contains an Arbitration Clause. In this case, venue

cannot be read as a seat because there is a contrary indication that the

lender could also choose another venue for the purpose of holding the

arbitration.

9. The Clause is quoted below:-

"11.4 ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION Any disputes or differences arising between the Parties hereto as to the interpretation of this Agreement or in connection with this Agreement or any covenants or conditions thereof or as to the rights, duties, of liabilities of any Party hereunder or as to any act, performance or non- performance of any act. deed or thing as agreed under this Agreement or matter or thing arising out of or relating to or under this Agreement (even though the Agreement may have been terminated,) the same shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender, according to the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, and rules there under and any amendment thereto from time to time. The Language of arbitration shall be English. All cost of arbitration including the arbitrator's fees, advocate fees, travailing cost other miscellaneous expenses shall be borne equally by the Parties hereto. The award of the arbitrator shall be a speaking award and shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the Parties whether on question of law or of fact. In the event of death, refusal, negligence, inability, incapability of the persons so appointed to act as a sole arbitrator, a new arbitrator shall be appointed by the Lender. The venue of arbitration shall be Pune or such other place that the Lender may in the sole discretion determine

and Courts in Pune or such other place shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in all respects with Indian laws and the Parties hereto agree that any matter or issues arising hereunder or any disputes hereunder shall, at the discretion of the Lender be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the city of Pune or such other place as the Lender may deem fit. This shall not however limit the rights of the Lender to take proceedings in any other Court of competent jurisdictions."

10. Part of the cause of action took place within Kolkata, as pleaded in

the application.

11. There is sufficient indication that the exclusivity of Pune as the

venue has been taken away by a further provision that the lender may

in its sole discretion choose a place/venue. Thus, the venue cannot be

read as a seat and Pune cannot have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain

the application for appointment of an arbitrator. Moreover, nothing

appears to have happened in Pune. The respondents did not object to

the selection of venue/place as Kolkata, which is a waiver.

12. Under such circumstances, this Court allows the application by

appointing Mr. Abhidipto Tarafder, learned Advocate, [Mobile No.

8697194588], Bar Library Club (Junior), as the learned Arbitrator, to

adjudicate the disputes between the parties. This appointment is

subject to compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996.

13. The learned Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration as per the Schedule

of the Act.

14. All objections with regard to jurisdiction, arbitrability, admissibility

and limitation etc, are left open.

15. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) SP/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter