Facts: Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and interim measures under Section 9 of the same Act, against Inderjeet Sahni and others, relating to a loan agreement where disputes arose due to alleged defaults in repayment. The loan was secured by a mortgage on land in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The applicant had initiated SARFAESI proceedings and obtained an order for physical possession, but could not take possession due to amalgamation issues with adjacent properties.Procedural Posture: The Applicant filed a Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.35431 of 2025 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator and Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.35458 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim measures. The Respondents opposed both, raising objections on jurisdiction, arbitrability, and limitation.Issue: (1) Was the invocation of arbitration valid under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act? (2) Does the Bombay High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application, considering the arbitration clause specifies multiple venues? (3) Is the reference to arbitration maintainable given the parallel SARFAESI proceedings? (4) Is the claim barred by limitation? (5) Is there a case for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act?Holding: The Bombay High Court held that (1) the invocation of arbitration was valid, (2) it had territorial jurisdiction as Mumbai was designated as one of the seats of arbitration, (3) SARFAESI proceedings do not bar arbitration, (4) the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, and (5) a prima facie case exists for interim measures. The court appointed an arbitrator and granted interim measures.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the notice dated 27 May 2025, constituted a valid request for arbitration under Section 21. The arbitration clause designated Mumbai as one of the seats of arbitration, conferring jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court. The court distinguished Vidya Drolia, clarifying that since the applicant was not a financial institution under the RDDB Act, the bar on arbitrability did not apply. The court found that the issue of limitation involved factual disputes best addressed by the arbitral tribunal. Finally, the court granted interim measures to protect the subject matter of the arbitration, noting the applicant's inability to take physical possession due to demarcation issues and the risk of alienation of the mortgaged property.