Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vivriti Capital Limited, filed three applications before the Madras High Court: Arb.O.P.No.720 of 2025 under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator; and Arb Appln Nos.739 and 740 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Act, seeking appointment of a Receiver to take possession of hypothecated assets and obtain asset verification reports. The dispute arose from a Master General Terms Agreement dated 03.08.2024 and a Personal Guarantee executed between the petitioner and the respondents, Gensol Electric Vehicles Private Limited and Mr. Anmol Jaggi. The petitioner alleged default by the respondents and invoked the arbitration clauses (Clause 26 of the Agreement and Clause 13 of the Guarantee). The court heard the Section 9 applications on 07.08.2025 and passed an order allowing the appointment of the petitioner's Authorised Officer as Receiver, with powers to break open premises and seek police protection, and to obtain asset reports from the respondents and their statutory auditor. Subsequently, the court considered the Section 11 application and appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes between the parties. The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and the disputes were arbitrable. The common order was passed on 09.02.2026 by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6)(a) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Dispute arose from Master General Terms Agreement dated 03.08.2024 and Personal Guarantee - Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties - Held that the arbitration clause was valid and the dispute fell within its scope (Paras 3, 5). B) Interim Measures - Appointment of Receiver - Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner sought appointment of Receiver to take possession of hypothecated assets and obtain asset reports - Court allowed the applications, appointing the Authorised Officer as Receiver with police protection - Held that interim protection was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the arbitration (Paras 2, 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, including appointment of a Receiver, should be granted to secure hypothecated assets.
Final Decision
The court allowed Arb.O.P.No.720 of 2025 appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. The court also allowed Arb Appln Nos.739 and 740 of 2025, appointing the Authorised Officer of the petitioner as Receiver to take possession of hypothecated assets with police protection and to obtain asset reports from the respondents and their statutory auditor.
Law Points
- Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Order XIV Rule 6 of O.S. Rules
