Tata Capital Limited vs Ariens Netcom Solution Private Limited & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010409532025
ARB.P. 931/2025
+
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Savyasachi K. Sahai, Ms.
Madhumita Bagchi and Mr. Rishabh
Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
ARIENS NETCOM SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, an NBFC, under
Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking constitution of
an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. The factual matrix, set forth by the petitioner, is that the respondents
approached the Tata Capital Financial Services Limited (hereinafter
“TCFSL”), which now stands merged with the petitioner w.e.f.01.01.2024,
through a loan application dated 15.03.2021.
3. Pursuant thereto, TCFSL sanctioned a facility of Rs. 43,00,000/- vide
Sanction Letter dated 16.03.2021 (Sanction letter –1). Thereafter, TCFSL
and the respondents executed, inter alia , Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement
dated 19.03.2021
, read with Master Terms and Conditions dated
31.12.2018.
ARB. P. 931/2025 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:00:13
4. Subsequently, the terms of the Facility were modified vide an
addendum sanction letter dated 24.09.2021 (Sanction letter-2).
5. On 10.04.2022, a fresh loan application was submitted by the
respondents. Pursuant thereto, TCFSL renewed the loan facility for
Rs.30,00,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 12.04.2022 (Sanction letter-3),
and a Renewal Letter along with a Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated
25.04.2022 , read with Master Terms and Conditions dated 31.12.2018 was
executed.
6. Thereafter, the loan Facility was further renewed and modified for Rs.
30,00,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 24.05.2023 ((Sanction letter-4),
followed by execution of, inter alia , Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated
21.06.2023 , read with Master Terms and Conditions dated 31.12.2018; and
Renewal Letter dated 21.06.2023.
7. The disputes between the parties arose on account of alleged defaults
in repayments. Consequently, a Loan Recall Notice dated 16.05.2025 was
issued by the petitioner, demanding Rs. 19,46,789.44/- and invoking
arbitration. The relevant extract of the said Loan Recall Notice is as under:
“ 14. In the event you, Nos. 1 to 3, fail to comply with your payment
obligations, it shall be presumed that disputes, differences, claims,
etc. have arisen between you and Our Client and this notice may be
treated as notice under Clause 12 of the Loan cum Guarantee
Agreement 3 (dated 21.06.2023) read with Clause 23 of the Master
Terms and Conditions hereby invoking arbitration.”
8. However, the same was not responded to by the respondents nor was
the outstanding amount under the Loan Agreement paid by the respondent.
Hence the present petition.
9. The arbitration clause contained in the Loan-cum-Guarantee
ARB. P. 931/2025 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:00:13
Agreement dated 21.06.2023 is as under:
10. Annexure-I to the said Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement reads as
under:
11. Notice in the present petition was issued to the respondents on
08.07.2025. However, in view of the non-appearance of the respondents
despite service, vide order dated 19.09.2025, liberty was granted to the
petitioner to serve the respondents afresh. Affidavits of service dated
18.08.2025 and 17.09.2025 have been duly filed by the petitioner.
12. It is noted that the order dated 20.02.2026, records the appearance of
ARB. P. 931/2025 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:00:13
‘Mr. Aman Goyal, Advocate’ for the respondents. Thereafter, none has
appeared for the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition
is taken up for hearing and disposal, despite no appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
13. Since the existence of the arbitration agreement is apparent from a
perusal of the Loan-cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 21.06.2023, there is
no impediment to constituting an arbitral tribunal for adjudicating the
disputes between the parties, as mandated in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning ,
(2024) 12 SCC 1. The said legal position has also been subsequently
reiterated in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Private
Limited & Anr. , (2025) 1 SCC 502 and Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. R Z Malpani , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 553.
14. Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. , (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377, and
Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited , 2019
SCC OnLine SC 547 and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya
Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. , (2026) 3 SCC 264, it is incumbent on this Court
to appoint an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between
the parties.
15. Accordingly, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Advocate (Mob. +91
9871049740), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties.
16. The respondents shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as
ARB. P. 931/2025 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:00:13
regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the
arbitrator in accordance with law.
17. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosures as
required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.
18. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with
th
IV
Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between
the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
19. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator
on their merits, in accordance with law.
20. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
21. The present petition stand disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ ss
ARB. P. 931/2025 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:00:13