ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010123242026 + ARB.P. 548/2026 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED …..Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus MAA SHARDA SALES AND ANR …..Respondents Through: Mr. Ujjaval Pandey and Mr. Nipun Dixit, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which are claimed to have arisen between the parties. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a non-banking financial company and had sanctioned a Channel Finance Facility of Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the respondent no.1 vide Sanction Letters dated 31.07.2023, 04.08.2022, 17.08.2023 and 31.08.2024. It is stated that the said loan amount was disbursed in accordance with the agreed terms and the loan agreements were executed upon renewal of the loan. 3. It is further stated that the respondent no.2 stood as a personal guarantor for the facility on and from the year 2023 and executed necessary documents. It is further stated that the financial facility was renewed every year on specific request of respondent no.1 by the petitioner, the last being on 20.09.2024. It is 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 2 of 7 alleged that respondent no.1 failed to comply with the agreed repayment schedule and committed repeated defaults following which the petitioner invoked the arbitration in terms of Clause 13 of the said Agreements and issued a legal notice dated 08.09.2025. It is stated that the respondent failed to reply to the said legal notice. 4. It is further stated that as per the latest statement of account, a sum of Rs.23,81,601/- is outstanding and payable by the respondents as on 03.09.2025. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed an Arbitration Petition bearing no.ARB.P.1713/2025 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The said petition was allowed by this Court vide the order dated 24.11.2025 appointing one Mr. Omansh Gupta, Advocate as the sole Arbitrator. It is stated that in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the Arbitrator had filed his declaration, perusing which the petitioner discovered that the learned Arbitrator did not possess the requisite eligibility criteria. 5. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. 6. Mr. Ujjaval Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 states that the first Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement entered on 16.08.2021 contained the place of arbitration and jurisdiction as one of the four places i.e. Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata and states that the respondent no.1 had no knowledge that the place of arbitration and jurisdiction has been tick marked as Delhi by the petitioner and that it is unilateral. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that there is a similar objection in respect of the Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 20.09.2024, as well. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused hereto of both the Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreements. The relevant parts of the Annexure 1 of both the said Agreements are extracted hereunder:- 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 3 of 7 (i) Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 16.08.2021: “ 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 4 of 7 (ii) Loan-Cum-Guarantee Agreement dated 20.09.2024: ” 8. It is no more res integra that the parties by choice can choose one of the many places as per their convenience for the purpose of resolution of disputes by arbitration. Prima facie, it is clear that the respondents had full knowledge of the place and jurisdiction of the arbitration in both the Agreements having signed each page of such agreements. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 5 of 7 9. Having regard to that this Court does not find any substance in the said objection. Even otherwise, there is no objection so far as the arbitration agreement encapsulated in Clauses 13 and 14 of the said Agreements, which are 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. 17 of Annexure 1 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 sole arbitrator to the Claimant within a period of ten (10) days from the date of notice ("Notice Period"); or (ii) Convey 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 entitled to nominate any one person from amongst the proposed three names as the sole arbitrator and such arbitrator shall be deemed to be appointed by both the Parties. In the event, the Respondent conveys its objection as per (ii) above then the sole arbitrator will be appointed by a Court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall be conducted under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 together with its amendments, any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in English language. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all Parties concerned. The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the Obligors. 14. Jurisdiction: Subject to Clause 13 above, the Parties hereto agree that all disputes arising out of and/or in relation to this Agreement, shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the courts/tribunals as set out in Serial No. 18 of Annexure 1 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 6 of 7 hereto. The Lender may, however, in its absolute discretion commence any legal action or proceedings arising out of this Agreement in any other court, tribunal or other appropriate forum and the Obligors hereby consents to that jurisdiction.” 10. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, held that the Court dealing with the petition under Section 11 seeking arbitration is only to satisfy itself as to the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned or any issue with respect to the disputes are concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal and the Arbitrator has the sole domain over such issue or dispute. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open and reserved to be raised before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 12. Having regard to the above, the petition is allowed, the following directions are passed: i) Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate (Mob. No.9312248478) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’). iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21 ARB.P. 548/2026 Page 7 of 7 of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator. vi) The petitioner shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today. 13. The petition is disposed of. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 25, 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 30/09/2026 at 11:01:21