$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010113672026 + ARB.P. 502/2026 TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Taniya Bansal, Adv. versus AVINASH AND CO & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ayush Garg, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1–4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties under a Loan Agreement dated 17.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”). 2. Material on record indicates that the Respondents approached the Petitioner to avail a loan facility in the form of Loan Against Property [“LAP”] and it was represented that the Respondents have the means and capacity to repay the financial facility to repay the loan. Based on the said representation, the Petitioner advanced a loan of Rs.1,93,76,667/- to the Respondents. It is stated that the Respondents secured the loan by creating a mortgage by deposit of title deed of property bearing ‘Plot no. 2224, 4th 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 24/09/2026 at 10:43:26 Floor (with roof), Block E, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana – 122017’. 3. It is stated that the Respondents failed to honour the commitments and therefore, the Petitioner approached Delhi Government Mediation & Conciliation Centre to settle the disputes amicably. Consequently, the parties arrived at a Settlement dated 11.09.2025, whereby Respondents agreed to repay the amount due and payable to the Petitioner. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that despite attempting to settle the disputes amicably with the Respondents, the Respondents have failed to comply with the obligations and an amount of Rs.1,80,74,800/- is due and payable by the Respondents. 5. It is stated that the Clause 12 read with Clause 13 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause. The said clause specifically states that the place of the arbitration shall be at Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata or Bangalore. It is stated that the Petitioner has chosen Delhi and therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. 6. Since the disputes arose between the parties, a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking arbitration was sent to the Respondents on 09.01.2026. The said Notice has not been replied to by the Respondents and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition. 7. Notice in the present Petition was issued on 24.03.2026. Office Report indicates that the Respondents have been served and an affidavit of service has also been filed by the Petitioner. Despite service, there is no response on behalf of the Respondents. 8. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to 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 24/09/2026 at 10:43:26 appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 9. Accordingly, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dudeja, Advocate (Mob. No: 9810147798) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 10. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. 11. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two weeks of entering on reference. 12. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 13. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 14. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 Prateek 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 24/09/2026 at 10:43:26