Corporate name change does not affect contractual rights or the validity of arbitration agreements.

The Petitioner (formerly Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd.) leased a Range Rover Velar to the Respondent under a Master Lease Agreement dated December 23, 2023

Following an accident on August 12, 2024, the lease was prematurely terminated, making the Respondent liable for certain dues

The Respondent failed to pay ₹25,22,753/-, prompting the Petitioner to invoke arbitration via notice on August 19, 2025

The Respondent challenged the petition on grounds of the Petitioner's name change, lack of authorization, failure to attempt pre-arbitral mutual discussions, and improper service of the Section 21 notice

1. Whether a change in the corporate name of a party affects its rights and obligations under an existing arbitration agreement

2. Whether pre-arbitral mutual discussion clauses are mandatory conditions precedent to filing a Section 11 petition

3. Whether the Section 21 notice was validly served via email in the absence of a physical post report

The Court primarily applied Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the appointment of an arbitrator

Section 23(3) of the Companies Act, which stipulates that a change of name does not affect any rights or legal proceedings of a company

Amrit Lal Bajaj & Co. v. Vysya Leasing and Finance Ltd. and Surendra Nath Shukla v. Indian Airlines Corporation, which establish that a corporate entity continues despite a name alteration

principle from Coach Com v. DME, holding that such clauses are directory and not mandatory

The Court rejected the Respondent’s objection regarding the Petitioner's identity, noting that the Certificate of Incorporation from the MCA proved the transition from Orix Auto Infrastructure to Orix Corporation India Ltd. was a mere name change with no change in management

The Court validated the authorization of the representative, Mr. Tarun Kumar Ghai, through a chain of Power of Attorneys derived from a Board Resolution

Addressing the pre-arbitral "mutual discussion" clause, the Court held it to be directory, meaning its non-fulfillment is not an impediment to invoking arbitration

the Court confirmed the validity of the Section 21 notice service, as the Respondent admitted to the email address used, satisfying the statutory requirements despite the lack of speed post confirmation

The Court appointed Ms. Isha Bhalla as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC)

The Court clarified that all rights and contentions regarding merits and arbitrability remain open for the Arbitrator’s determination