Quick Summary: Vijay Jain and others wanted a neutral person to help settle a disagreement with Laxmi Foils Pvt. Ltd. over a money deal. The court decided to pick someone to help resolve the issue, even though there were some arguments about whether the deal was legitimate.
In March 2022, Laxmi Foils Pvt. Ltd., a company that makes aluminum products, got into a financial mess with Vijay Jain and others. The problem was about a Facilities Agreement dated February 21, 2022. This agreement was supposed to manage the credit and loans that Vijay Jain gave to Laxmi Foils.
Things got more complicated when OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd. decided to buy Laxmi Foils. They signed an initial agreement on November 25, 2021, which turned into a Share Purchase Agreement on February 3, 2022. This was supposed to help clear Laxmi Foils' debts.
When Laxmi Foils didn't pay back Rs. 1,41,64,903, Vijay Jain and others sent warning letters in July 2022. OMAT Business Pvt. Ltd. replied, saying the repayment was linked to the Share Purchase Agreement, which was already being discussed in arbitration.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) turned down a related request on July 5, 2023, because there were already issues being argued about. This led Vijay Jain to ask for arbitration on February 25, 2025, but Laxmi Foils didn't join in, leading to the current court case.
For Laxmi Foils: Ms. Malvika Trivedi said there wasn't a real arbitration agreement and questioned if the deal was even official, saying it was just a draft.
For Vijay Jain: Vijay Jain argued there was a real arbitration agreement and mentioned a Supreme Court decision to back up their claim.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar looked at whether there was an agreement to have an arbitrator. The court found that Rajesh Jain, a director of Laxmi Foils, had signed the agreement, showing it was real.
On February 17, 2026, the court chose Mr. Harshit Agarwal as the only arbitrator to solve the disagreement. The court made it clear that all issues could be discussed with the arbitrator, leaving the details of the case to be decided later.
The court decided to appoint an arbitrator, allowing the disagreement to be handled through arbitration. This ensures both sides can present their arguments fairly.
