Delhi High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

A prima facie arbitration agreement suffices for appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs Mr Sandeep Yadav Proprietor Of Puspit Enterprises And Ors

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: October 15, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A prima facie arbitration agreement suffices for appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11.. Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs Mr Sandeep Yadav Proprietor Of Puspit Enterprises And Ors. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator under Clause 8.2 of a Loan Agreement dated 29 July 2024.

Source reference: para. 1

The Court recorded that Respondent No. 1 had been served and that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had refused service; the respondents did not participate in the proceedings.

Source reference: paras. 2–5

Clause 8.2 provided for arbitration of disputes arising out of or connected with the agreement, with a mutually appointed sole arbitrator or, failing mutual agreement, appointment in accordance with the Act; the seat was Delhi.

Source reference: para. 7
02

Issues

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act where the agreement contains an arbitration clause and the respondents did not participate in the petition.

Source reference: paras. 5–8

2. Whether the parties’ disputes, including any objections to impleadment, arbitrability, or jurisdiction, should be left for determination by the arbitrator.

Source reference: para. 12
03

Law Applied

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requires the Court, at the appointment stage, to confine its enquiry to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Source reference: para. 6

Under Clause 8.2 of the Loan Agreement, disputes connected with the agreement were to be referred to a sole arbitrator, appointed by mutual consent or, failing that, in accordance with the Act.

Source reference: para. 7

The appointed arbitrator was also required to furnish disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act.

Source reference: para. 10
04

Reasoning

The Court found no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration clause and concluded that there was no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

Source reference: paras. 7–8

The respondents’ non-participation did not prevent the Court from deciding the petition on the material before it.

Source reference: para. 5

Consistent with the limited scope of Section 11 review, the Court left questions concerning impleadment, arbitrability, and jurisdiction to the arbitrator.

Source reference: paras. 6, 12
05

Holding

The Court found no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration clause and concluded that there was no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

The petition was disposed of by appointing Ms. Rajni Anand, Advocate, as sole arbitrator. The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees as per its schedule; the arbitrator is to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2).

Source reference: paras. 9–11, 15

The parties may raise their pleas before the arbitrator, who must decide independently and uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

Source reference: paras. 12–13
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt LtdvsMr Sandeep Yadav Proprietor Of Puspit Enterprises And Ors

Delhi High Court · October 15, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment