ARB-501-2025 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Poonawalia Fincorp Limited M/s Dada Motors CORAM: HON'BLE Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Court on 19.11.2025, this matter has come up for hearing despite the value of the claim being less than Rs. 15 crores. 2. 1996 (for brevity, 3. perused. 4. 06.12.2020 Dholewal Ch follows : “2 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Poonawalia Fincorp Limited Versus M/s Dada Motors and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU Ms. Priyanka Malik, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE In view of the order passed by the Court on 19.11.2025, this matter has come up for hearing despite the value of the claim being less than Rs. 15 crores. Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for brevity, ‘1996 Act’), seeks appointment of Arbitrator. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents The rival parties herein entered into 20 (Annexure P-2) in respect of office premises at Savitri Complex, 1 Dholewal Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, containing an arbitration clause as “23.. Arbitration -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-501-202 Date of decision : 01.05.2026 …….Applicant ….Respondents MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE , Advocate, for Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate, r. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate, In view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2025, this matter has come up for hearing despite the value of Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ppointment of Arbitrator. Reply filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record and The rival parties herein entered into lease agreement da in respect of office premises at Savitri Complex, 1 , containing an arbitration clause as 2025 .2026 …….Applicant ….Respondents ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2025, this matter has come up for hearing despite the value of Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is taken on record and agreement dated in respect of office premises at Savitri Complex, 1 , containing an arbitration clause as NAROTAM DASS 2026.05.06 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-501-2025 23.1 parties hereto during the subsistence of this Deed or any renewals including the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Deed or regarding any question, the parties hereto shall endeavor to settle such dispute amicably on mutual agreement appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of provisions contained in the arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 or any subsequent law for the time being in force. 23.2 language. 23.3 termination of this Deed for any reason whatsoever. 23.4 Ludhiana.” 4.1 dated 27.03.202 dispute through arbitration 5. existence and execution of under the arbitration clause in the agreement between riva notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a deadwood. 5.1 they have also made a counter deciding the claim of the applicant by the Arbitrator, if appointed. 6. Act is well settled. 2025 23.1 If any dispute and/or difference arises between the parties hereto during the subsistence of this Deed or any renewals of the same or thereafter, including the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Deed or regarding any question, the parties hereto shall endeavor to settle such dispute amicably on mutual agreement appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of provisions contained in the arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 or any subsequent law for the time being in force. 23.2 The proceedings of arbitration shall be in English language. 23.3 The provisions of this clause shall termination of this Deed for any reason whatsoever. 23.4 That the place of Arbitration shall be in Ludhiana.” Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice .03.2025 (Annexure P-4) upon the respondents dispute through arbitration, but to no avail. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the existence and execution of lease agreement under the arbitration clause in the agreement between riva notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a deadwood. The only submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that they have also made a counter-claim, which is also to be considered while deciding the claim of the applicant by the Arbitrator, if appointed. The law regarding the scope of examination u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act is well settled. At the stage of considering an application for appointment -2- If any dispute and/or difference arises between the parties hereto during the subsistence of this Deed or any thereafter, in connection therewith including the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this Deed or regarding any question, the parties hereto shall endeavor to settle such dispute amicably on mutual agreement appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of provisions contained in the arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 or any subsequent law The proceedings of arbitration shall be in English The provisions of this clause shall survive the termination of this Deed for any reason whatsoever. That the place of Arbitration shall be in Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice ) upon the respondents seeking resolution of Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the agreement, exhaustion of remedy by applicant under the arbitration clause in the agreement between rival parties, service of notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a The only submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that claim, which is also to be considered while deciding the claim of the applicant by the Arbitrator, if appointed. the scope of examination u/s 11 (6) of 1996 At the stage of considering an application for appointment Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice solution of Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the of remedy by applicant l parties, service of notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a The only submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that claim, which is also to be considered while the scope of examination u/s 11 (6) of 1996 At the stage of considering an application for appointment NAROTAM DASS 2026.05.06 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-501-2025 of an Arbitrator, the Court is only required to undertake a examination whether the disputes are manifestly arbitrable. Unless it is the arbitration a demonstrably non 7. Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, SCC 385, (2021) 2 SCC 675, exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial or enter into a detailed adjudication in doubt, do refer”. 8. be satisfied. impediment to the exercise of this Cour 9. 9.1 House No. 148 hereby appointed as Sole Arbit applicant and counter compliance of statutory requirements under 1996 Act before proceeding ahead. 10. date, time and place to be fixed by the Arbitrator at h 2025 of an Arbitrator, the Court is only required to undertake a examination as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and whether the disputes are manifestly arbitrable. Unless it is the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or the disputes are demonstrably non-arbitrable, the matter ought to be referred to arbitration. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd., 2023 (9) and DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 675, has consistently held that the referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial or enter into a detailed adjudication of disputed questions. The rule is : “when in doubt, do refer”. Pre-requisites for invoking power u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act appear to be satisfied. The objections raised by the respondents do not constitute a valid impediment to the exercise of this Court’s power to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Mr. Justice Gurbir Singh, former Judge of this Court, residing at House No. 148-L, Model Town, Ludhiana, hereby appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute (claim of applicant and counter-claim of the respondents) compliance of statutory requirements under 1996 Act before proceeding Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrat date, time and place to be fixed by the Arbitrator at h -3- of an Arbitrator, the Court is only required to undertake a limited prima facie as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and whether the disputes are manifestly arbitrable. Unless it is ex facie clear that existent, invalid, or the disputes are arbitrable, the matter ought to be referred to arbitration. Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd., 2023 (9) DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd., has consistently held that the referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial of disputed questions. The rule is : “when requisites for invoking power u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act appear to The objections raised by the respondents do not constitute a valid t’s power to appoint an Arbitrator. Accordingly, this application is allowed. , former Judge of this Court, residing at L, Model Town, Ludhiana, Mobile No. 85588 07002 o adjudicate the dispute (claim of claim of the respondents) between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements under 1996 Act before proceeding Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on date, time and place to be fixed by the Arbitrator at his convenience. limited prima facie as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement and clear that existent, invalid, or the disputes are Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd., 2023 (9) DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd., has consistently held that the referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial of disputed questions. The rule is : “when requisites for invoking power u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act appear to The objections raised by the respondents do not constitute a valid , former Judge of this Court, residing at 7002, is o adjudicate the dispute (claim of between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements under 1996 Act before proceeding or on NAROTAM DASS 2026.05.06 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment ARB-501-2025 11. jurisdiction objections with respect to the exis agreement, claims or counter in accordance with Section 16 of 1996 Act. 12. Schedule of 1996 Act, as the parties. 13. per time limit stipulated u/s 29 14. this order and shall not be construed as expression on merits of the dispute. 15. Mr. Justice May 01, 2026 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 The Arbitrator is appointed with the liberty to determine jurisdiction and rule on any objections including objections with respect to the existence or validi agreement, claims or counter-claims and the scope of the Arbitrator’s authority in accordance with Section 16 of 1996 Act. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act, as amended from time to time, or fee as agreed to by the parties. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the arbitral proceedings as per time limit stipulated u/s 29-A of 1996 Act. Any observation made hereinabove is meant merely for passing rder and shall not be construed as expression on merits of the dispute. A request letter along with copy of thi . Justice Gurbir Singh, former Judge of this Court. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- The Arbitrator is appointed with the liberty to determine and rule on any objections including (but not limited to) ruling on tence or validity of the arbitration and the scope of the Arbitrator’s authority in accordance with Section 16 of 1996 Act. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth amended from time to time, or fee as agreed to by The Arbitrator is requested to complete the arbitral proceedings as A of 1996 Act. Any observation made hereinabove is meant merely for passing rder and shall not be construed as expression on merits of the dispute. A request letter along with copy of this order be sent to , former Judge of this Court. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No The Arbitrator is appointed with the liberty to determine (but not limited to) ruling on ty of the arbitration and the scope of the Arbitrator’s authority The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth amended from time to time, or fee as agreed to by The Arbitrator is requested to complete the arbitral proceedings as Any observation made hereinabove is meant merely for passing rder and shall not be construed as expression on merits of the dispute. s order be sent to NAROTAM DASS 2026.05.06 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment