Tata Capital Limited vs Manish Agencies And Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010131312026
+ ARB.P. 561/2026, I.A. 24097/2026 & I.A. 24113/2026
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ragini Kapoor, Adv.

versus

MANISH AGENCIES AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasvinder Singh Lohiya,
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Mr. Anand
and Ms. Tanya Gupta, Advs.
for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER(ORAL)
% 03.09.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , wherein the Petitioner seeks
appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the resolution of dispute in terms
of the Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 12.12.2024.

2. On 07.05.2026, Respondent No.2 appeared in person and
submitted that there was a possibility of the dispute between the
parties being settled through mediation. However, on 20.08.2026, it
was submitted before this Court that the mediation proceedings had
failed.


1
“the Act”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:05.09.2026
18:59:35
ARB.P. 561/2026 Page 1 of 5

3. Today, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has raised an
objection on the ground that there is no agreement exists between the
Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the
Agreement between the parties relied upon by the Petitioner are
forged and fabricated documents.

4. Per Contra , learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that
their exists a valid arbitration clause between the parties.

5. It is trite that the scope of enquiry in proceedings under Section
11 of the Act is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an
2
arbitration agreement .

6. The Court, at this stage, is not required to undertake a detailed
examination of the genuineness, execution or substantive validity of
the underlying agreement, particularly where such determination
would require appreciation of evidence.

7. In the present case, the allegations of fraud and forgery raised
by Respondent No. 2 relate to the execution and genuineness of the
documents relied upon by the Petitioner. Such examination would
amount to a detailed adjudication on the validity/ genuineness of the
agreement which is beyond the limited scope of examination under
Section 11 of the Act.


2
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:05.09.2026
18:59:35
ARB.P. 561/2026 Page 2 of 5

8. The mere raising of allegations of fraud or forgery, therefore,
cannot by itself warrant refusal of reference to arbitration.

9. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Triom Hospitality v. J.S. Hospitality
3
Services (P) Ltd., wherein, the Court held that allegations of fraud
and forgery requiring examination of disputed documents and
evidence ought not to be conclusively adjudicated at the Section 11
stage. Such issues may appropriately be left for determination by the
Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act. In the present case,
Respondent No. 2’s allegations of fraud and fabrication likewise
require substantive examination and are, accordingly, left open for
determination by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to undertake,
at this stage, an adjudication upon the allegations of fraud, forgery or
fabrication raised by Respondent No. 2. All such contentions are left
open for consideration by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with
law.

11. The Petitioner has raised a claim of approximately Rs.26 lakhs.

12. Accordingly, Ms. Anshika Saxena, Advocate, (Mob. No.
8377944021) is appointed as a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator
shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from today.

3
2025 SCC OnLine Del 8647
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:05.09.2026
18:59:35
ARB.P. 561/2026 Page 3 of 5

13. The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required
under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
within two weeks of entering reference.

14. The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of
Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). The learned
Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees
maintained by the DIAC.

15. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including
preliminary objection with respect to arbitrability, existence and
validity of the arbitration agreement, if any, before the learned Sole
Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11(6) of the
Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes
independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any
observations contained in the present order.

17. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Ms.
Anshika Saxena, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes
including email.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:05.09.2026
18:59:35
ARB.P. 561/2026 Page 4 of 5

18. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above
terms.


OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
SEPTEMBER 3, 2026/ss




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:05.09.2026
18:59:35
ARB.P. 561/2026 Page 5 of 5