Synopsis

The petitioner filed an application under section 11 of the arbitration act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on a loan agreement containing an arbitration clause. The respondent was duly served but did not appear. The delhi high court, following the three-judge bench decision in sbi general insurance co. ltd. v. krish spg. and the seven-judge bench decision in interplay between arbitration agreements, held that the referral court’s role under section 11 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of a written arbitration agreement. Finding the arbitration clause valid and the statutory notice complied with, the court appointed a sole arbitrator. No opinion was expressed on the merits.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 12th May 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 140/2026 (2026:DHC:4181)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 (appointment of arbitrator); Section 11(6-A) (scope limited to existence of arbitration agreement).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Arb.p. 140/2026, i.a. 1686/2026 & i.a. 1687/2026

Moneywise financial services pvt ltd (petitioner) vs. Mr ranveer singh proprietor of delhi bangalore freight carrier and anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date: 12th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.