TYGER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ADVANCED IT SOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this Petition under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioner has asked for interim reliefs as mentioned in prayer clauses (a) to (f) of the Petition.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that on 31/8/2025, it issued a Sanction Letter in favour of the Respondents. On the very same day, the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. B and C entered into a Facility Letter cum Agreement. On that day itself, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 also executed a Letter of Guarantee in favour of the Petitioner to secure the said facility. According to the Petitioner, thereafter the Respondents became jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,01,35,899.07 to the Petitioner. Since the said amount was not paid, the Petitioner, through its Advocates, issued a notice dtd. 7/3/2025 calling upon the Respondents to clear the outstanding dues. Even after receiving the said notice, the Respondents did not make payment of the outstanding amount. It is the case of the Petitioner that disputes and differences thereafter arose between the parties. According to the Petitioner, although there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Respondents neither appointed an Arbitrator nor suggested the name of any Arbitrator as required under the agreement. Therefore, the Petitioner filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a learned Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. Along with the said proceedings, the Petitioner has also filed the present Petition under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim protection in relation to the disputes between the parties.

(3.) On going through the record, it appears that Clause (17) of the Facility Letter cum Agreement dtd. 31/8/2025 contains an arbitration clause between the parties. On 1/4/2026, this Court granted Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 two weeks' time to file their reply. At the same time, by way of ad interim protection, this Court directed that if the four cheques issued by Respondent No.4 were encashed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, they should not deal with or use the amount received under those cheques till the next date of hearing.