Facts
The petitioners and respondents jointly requested that their disputes be referred to mediation to explore an amicable settlement.
Source reference: p.1, para. 1The Court referred the matters to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) and directed the parties to appear on 17 October 2026, allowing two weeks for mediation.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 2–3The parties agreed that, if mediation failed, the disputes could be referred to arbitration; they did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
Source reference: p.2, para. 4The petitioners stated that the amount in dispute was approximately Rs. 5.5 crores.
Source reference: p.3, para. 11Issues
Whether the disputes should be referred to mediation to explore settlement
Source reference: p.1, para. 1Whether, if mediation failed, the Court could appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Source reference: p.2, paras. 4–6Law 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.2, para. 5The Court cited SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, for this principle.
Source reference: p.2, para. 5, footnote 1The appointed arbitrator must furnish the disclosure required by Section 12(2) of the Act.
Source reference: p.3, para. 8Reasoning
The parties jointly sought mediation and agreed that arbitration would follow if mediation did not result in settlement.
Source reference: pp.1–2, paras. 1–4As the existence of a valid arbitration agreement was undisputed, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator, consistently with the limited prima facie inquiry under Section 11.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 4–6The appointment was structured to take effect after the mediation report recorded failure to settle.
Source reference: p.2, para. 7Holding
The Court referred the matters to SAMADHAN for two weeks of mediation and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Garg (Retd.) as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes if mediation failed.
The arbitration is to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees as per its schedule; the parties may raise all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 9–10The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: p.4, para. 14Acts & 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
Columbia Holdings Private LimitedvsAshwin S Mehta H U F & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
