Facts
The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator
Source reference: p.1The dispute arose from a Master Loan Agreement dated 24.02.2024, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 8.2) designating Delhi as the seat
Source reference: p.1-2The Petitioner issued a Section 21 notice on 15.10.2025
Source reference: p.2Although the Respondents were served and the Joint Registrar closed their right to file a reply on 20.04.2026, the Respondents failed to appear or contest the proceedings
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act given the non-responsiveness of the Respondents and the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement
Source reference: p.6, para. 8Law Applied
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the appointment of arbitrators
Source reference: p.1Judicial scrutiny under Section 11 is confined strictly to a prima facie examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement as established in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) and In re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899 (2024)
Source reference: p.2-3Legislative amendments to Section 11(6-A) overruled earlier broader standards, ensuring minimal judicial interference and protecting the "competence-competence" doctrine of the Arbitral Tribunal
Source reference: p.3-5Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner successfully established the existence of an arbitration agreement through Clause 8.2 of the Loan Agreement
Source reference: p.2Applying the "facilitative and procedural" standard from Krish Spinning, the Court noted that it must not engage in a "laborious enquiry" into the merits or contested facts, such as "accord and satisfaction," which are reserved for the tribunal under Section 16
Source reference: p.4-6Since the Respondents were served but chose not to participate, and the Section 21 notice requirements were met, the Court found no impediment to referring the matter to arbitration
Source reference: p.6The Court also determined that referring the dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) was appropriate given the dispute's valuation of approximately Rs. 30 Lakhs
Source reference: p.6-7Holding
The Court allowed the petition and appointed Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes under the aegis of the DIAC
The Court directed the arbitrator to provide a disclosure under Section 12(2) and ordered that the arbitration abide by DIAC rules and fee schedules; all rights and contentions on merits were left open for the tribunal’s decision
Source reference: p.7Original Court PDF
M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.vsSmt. Sonia Nagpal Proprietor Of Bobby Impex And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in