Delhi High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

A Section 11 Court’s inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Tata Capital Limited vs A K Sharma

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A Section 11 Court’s inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.. Tata Capital Limited vs A K Sharma. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Tata Capital Limited filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under a Loan Agreement dated 22 March 2023. Clause 9 of the agreement provided for arbitration before a sole arbitrator

Source reference: p.1

The petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 2 July 2026

Source reference: p.2

The respondent was served with notice of the petition but did not appear; the Court proceeded ex parte

Source reference: p.2, paras 4–8
02

Issues

1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act to adjudicate disputes arising under the Loan Agreement

Source reference: pp.2–3, paras 9–10

2. Whether the respondent’s non-appearance despite service prevented the Court from proceeding with the petition

Source reference: p.3, para 8
03

Law Applied

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the applicable appointment process has not resulted in an appointment. At this stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to determining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stated in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

Source reference: p.3, para 9

The arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement provided for disputes to be resolved by arbitration under the Act

Source reference: p.1

Section 12(2) of the Act requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure

Source reference: p.4, para 12
04

Reasoning

The Court found that the respondent had been duly served but had chosen not to participate, and therefore proceeded ex parte

Source reference: p.3, para 8

Applying the limited prima facie enquiry under Section 11, the Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration clause between the parties

Source reference: p.3, paras 9–10

It consequently found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator, leaving questions including arbitrability and jurisdiction open for determination by the arbitrator

Source reference: p.4, para 14
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of with the appointment of Mr. Vidhan Malik, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2)

Source reference: p.4, para 12

The arbitration is to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under its schedule

Source reference: p.4, para 13

The parties may raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator

Source reference: p.4, para 14
06

Acts & Sections Cited

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Tata Capital LimitedvsA K Sharma

Delhi High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment