Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Radico Khaitan Invoice Dispute, Citing Clause Deeming Acceptance Of Arbitration Terms Upon Taking Goods

In brief

The question

Whether the invoice terms disclosed a prima facie arbitration agreement warranting appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Vishal Singhal, Advocate, as sole arbitrator, directing him to enter upon the reference within three weeks and furnish the disclosure required under Section 12(2) within three weeks of entering the reference.

It also directed

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its schedule.

The parties were left at liberty to raise all pleas before the arbitrator, including objections concerning impleadment, arbitrability and jurisdiction; the petition and pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

Radico Khaitan Limited filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking resolution of disputes with Glare Glass Traders and others.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

After notice did not result in an appearance, the Court directed substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

Publication was made in Hindustan Times and Navbharat Times on 24 October 2026, and service was deemed sufficient.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–4

The respondents did not appear or file a reply.

p. 2 · ¶ 5

The arbitration clause appeared in Clause 4 of the tax/sale invoices and provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator, with Delhi as the seat.

p. 2 · ¶ 7

02Issues

i.Whether the invoice terms disclosed a prima facie arbitration agreement warranting appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

p. 2 · ¶ 6–8

ii.Whether the respondents’ non-appearance, following substituted service, prevented the Court from proceeding with the petition.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5, 8

03Law Applied

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confines the Court’s enquiry at the appointment stage to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

p. 2 · ¶ 6

Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for substituted service; the Court treated the newspaper publication as sufficient service in this case.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–4

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

p. 2 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court found that Clause 4 of the invoices contained an arbitration agreement covering disputes arising from or relating to the transaction or invoice, and specified arbitration before a sole arbitrator with Delhi as the seat.

p. 2 · ¶ 7

Applying its limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found no impediment to appointing an arbitrator.

p. 2 · ¶ 8

The respondents’ failure to appear or reply did not prevent the Court from proceeding after service had been deemed sufficient.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 4–5