Synopsis

The petitioner (tata capital limited) filed a petition under section 11(6) of the arbitration act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on the arbitration clause in a term loan agreement. the respondents were served through substituted means 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. since the arbitration clause existed and the statutory notice was complied with, the court appointed a sole arbitrator. all rights and contentions were kept open for the arbitrator.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

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

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: ARB.P. 1855/2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) (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. 1855/2025

Tata capital limited (petitioner) vs. M/s vallabh saree emporium & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice harish vaidyanathan shankar

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisi

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