Delhi High Court Arbitration and Mediation Civil Procedure and Evidence

Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Tata Capital’s About Rs 11.18-Lakh Claim After Respondents Fail To Appear Despite Service

M/S Tata Capital Ltdv.Sanwar Lal And Anr

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided November 03, 2026Published 3 November 2026 at 9:30 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether a prima facie valid and binding arbitration agreement existed so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

The court held

The petition was disposed of by appointing Ms. Riddhi Jad, Advocate, as sole arbitrator, with the reference to be administered under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

It also directed

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of doing so.

The parties remained at liberty to raise all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.

01Facts

Tata Capital Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The petitioner claimed approximately ₹11.18 lakh.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The Court found that notice had been duly served on the respondents, who neither appeared nor filed a reply.

p. 1 · ¶ 2–5 · p. 2 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether a prima facie valid and binding arbitration agreement existed so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.

p. 3 · ¶ 8–10

ii.Whether the respondents’ non-appearance and failure to reply, despite service, prevented the Court from considering the appointment.

p. 1 · ¶ 3–5

03Law Applied

Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empower the Court to consider a request for appointment of an arbitrator.

p. 3 · ¶ 8

At this stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

p. 3 · ¶ 8

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

p. 3 · ¶ 12

No precedent was cited.

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

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the service evidence and noted that the respondents had neither appeared nor filed a reply; their absence did not prevent the Court from proceeding with the appointment.

p. 1 · ¶ 3–5

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found that a valid and binding arbitration agreement existed and saw no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

p. 3 · ¶ 8–10

05Holding

p. 3 · ¶ 11–13 · p. 4 · ¶ 17

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within two weeks and furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of doing so.

p. 3 · ¶ 11–12

The parties remained at liberty to raise all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.

p. 4 · ¶ 14

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF