ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1006/2026 CHANDAN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Manya Dudeja and Mr. Divya Gyan, Advocates. versus TATA CAPITAL LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harsh Dixit, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”). 2. It would be relevant at the first instance to peruse the Arbitration Clause of the Agreement which is extracted hereunder:- “13.Arbitration If any dispute, difference or claim arises between any of the Obligors and the Lender in connection with the Facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under these T&Cs or alleged breach of the Facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed as per the procedure below and to be held at such place as agreed by the Parties in Serial No. 13(a) of Annexure I hereto of the Agreement. The Party invoking the arbitration (“Claimant”) shall address a notice to the other Party (“Respondent”), suggesting the names of not more than three arbitrators all of whom shall be either retired judges of the District Court, High Court or the Supreme Court or a lawyer having minimum 10 years relevant experience. The Respondent shall either: (i) Confirm in writing acceptance of one amongst the proposed names as the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35 ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 2 of 6 sole arbitrator to the Claimant within a period of ten (10) days from the date of notice (“Notice Period”); or (ii) Convey the objection, if any, in writing to the Claimant against the proposed names of the sole arbitrator within the said Notice Period. However, if the Claimant does not receive any response from the Respondent within the said Notice Period, the Claimant shall be at liberty to nominate any one person from amongst the proposed names as the sole arbitrator and such arbitrator shall be deemed to be accepted by both the Parties. In the event, the Respondent conveys its objections as set (ii) above, then the appointment of the sole arbitrator shall be referred to the Council for Indian and International Commercial Arbitration (CIICA) and the arbitrator shall, if appointed by the institution, conduct arbitration proceedings. The arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the said institution____________. The award in the arbitration shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the Obligors.” (omitted text is illegible)” 3. Vide the email dated 16.05.2026, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking the Arbitration as per Clause 13 and Serial no.13(a) of Annexure 1 of the Agreement executed between the parties. 4. Vide the reply dated 20.05.2026, the respondent did not consent to the appointment of the three advocates nominated by the petitioner being Arbitrators, however, agreed to the appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. The present petition is necessitated on that ground. 5. As per the petition, the petitioner no.1 purchased a construction vehicle by availing a loan of Rs.26,24,656/- from the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”) in the year 2023. It is stated that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.34,60,000/-. In order to avail the loan, the Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement was signed and executed between the parties on 30.12.2023. The terms of the Agreement specified that the petitioner no.1 had to pay a monthly EMI of Rs.64,077/- to the respondent. It is averted that the EMI account of the petitioners reflected timely payment until 29.07.2024. It is also further stated that in August, 2024, due to economic hardships, the petitioners defaulted This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35 ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 3 of 6 payment of the EMI for the first time. 6. The respondent is stated to have preferred a Section 9 petition on 10.09.2024 under the Act before the District Court Tis Hazari, Delhi seeking the custody of the subject vehicle. However, the said petition was withdrawn on 12.03.2025, on a statement that the vehicle is not traceable and that the respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings and therefore, does not wish to pursue the petition. The petitioners submit that the aforesaid statements were patently false to the knowledge of the respondent. The petitioners state that there is in fact no such clause in the Agreement permitting the respondent to take repossession of the said vehicle in question. In such circumstances taking possession of the vehicle by one means or the other is absolutely contrary not only to law but also to the terms of the Agreement. 7. It is stated that on 07.05.2025, the subject vehicle of the petitioners was forcefully repossessed while it was operating at Adarsh Noble Indian Oil’s work site near Dagrampur, Uttar Pradesh. The said possession is stated to have been carried out without any prior intimation, notice or a judicial or arbitral tribunal’s order. It is reiterated that the said Agreement did not empower the respondent to take repossession of the vehicle by any means whatsoever. 8. The petitioners had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad in W.P.(C) 2311/2025 on 05.07.2025. However, vide the order dated 28.07.2025, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability with the liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate forum. 9. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act bearing O.M.P (I) (COMM) 47/2026 titled as Chandan & Anr. vs. Tata Capital on 20.11.2025 before the learned Patiala House Court, seeking possession of the subject vehicle. An ex-parte order was granted to the petitioners on 13.01.2026 restraining the respondent from creating any kind of third-party interest/parting with the possession of the said vehicle. Vide the final order dated 13.05.2026, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35 ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 4 of 6 the petition under Section 9 of the Act was allowed by the District Court and the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 13.01.2026 was made final and given effect till 30.06.2026. 10. By way of an application the petitioner sought extension of the said time which was granted vide the order 02.07.2026 of the District Court granting extension of interim protection upto 31.07.2026. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that there is no clause which permits respondent to take repossession of the subject vehicle by any means whatsoever, the repossession by forceful means is a subject matter of the dispute. She also submits that the dispute also is predicated on the loss of business on account of forcible repossession of the vehicle in question by the respondent on and from 07.05.2025. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent does not submit to the contentions raised by the petitioner, however, states that the respondent would have no objection in case this Court appoints an Arbitrator to enter reference and arbitrate the aforesaid disputes, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. 13. Order dated 02.07.2026 is taken on record. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Perusal of the aforesaid Arbitration Clause shows that there exists a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, whereby, any dispute between the parties shall be resolved by way of Arbitration. 16. This Court records the statement of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has claimed approximately Rs.34,60,000/- (Rupees Thiry-Four Lacs Sixty Thousand only). 17. Thus, in view of the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, as well as the disputes that have arisen between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no impediment in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35 ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 5 of 6 appointment of an Arbitrator. 18. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the following directions are issued: i. Mr. Kirt Javali, Advocate, (Mob. No.: 9810518044) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. ii. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Act. iii. The Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event there is any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court. iv. It shall be open to the respondent to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceedings. v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, the arbitrability of any of the claims and/or counter-claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. vi. The parties shall approach the Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from today. 19. Needless to observe that that till the time the Arbitrator enters into reference and an appropriate application in that regard is filed by the petitioner and is adjudicated by the Arbitrator, the respondent shall not dispose of or create any third party interests in respect of the vehicle in question. 20. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the matter. 21. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35 ARB.P. 1006/2026 Page 6 of 6 22. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JULY 6, 2026 Sumit This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:15:35