Facts
Tata Capital filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to determine disputes arising from a loan agreement dated 9 December 2022.
Source reference: p.1It alleged that the respondents defaulted on instalments, that the facility was recalled by notice dated 28 May 2026, and that ₹7,64,698 remained outstanding as of 14 July 2026.
Source reference: p.1After notice was issued, the respondents were served but did not appear or file a reply.
Source reference: pp.1–2The loan agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration of disputes by a sole arbitrator.
Source reference: pp.4–5Issues
1. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 where the loan agreement contains an arbitration clause and the respondents, despite service, did not participate.
Source reference: pp.1–2, 52. Whether the Court’s Section 11 inquiry required more than a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s inquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
Source reference: p.5The Court cited SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for this principle.
Source reference: p.5The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act.
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Court found that the loan agreement contained an arbitration clause and that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Source reference: pp.4–5The respondents had been duly served but neither appeared nor filed a reply.
Source reference: pp.1–2Applying the limited prima facie inquiry under Section 11, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.
Source reference: p.5It left all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, for determination by the arbitrator.
Source reference: p.6Holding
The petition was allowed in the stated terms, and Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate, was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
He was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks and provide the required disclosure under Section 12(2).
Source reference: pp.5–6The arbitration was directed to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees payable under its schedule.
Source reference: p.6The arbitrator was to decide the parties’ pleas independently and on their merits.
Source reference: p.6Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
M/S Tata Capital LtovsShivam Contractor And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
