Tata Capital Limited vs Dharmendra Singh Meena

Arbitration Application (L) No.20831 of 2025 has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under an agreement dated December 25, 2022. The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 13 (found at Page 32 of the Application) of the Agreement. In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the

¶13

jurisdiction of this Court.

¶14

Page 1 of 5 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶15

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2025.08.1912:40:03 Aarti Palkar +0530

¶16

22.ARBP.371.2024 & Anr..doc

¶17

It is apparent from the record that the arbitration agreement was invoked by the Petitioner on September 12, 2023. There is no reply to the said invocation. It is seen from the record that Applicant has filed a service affidavit dated August 2, 2025, which demonstrates service on the Respondent. Despite service, none appears for the Respondent. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this Application any further.

¶18

Arbitration Petition No.371 of 2024 (“ Section 9 Petition ”) relates to the very same matter between the very same parties, seeking certain interlocutory protective reliefs. The Section 9 Petition stands converted into an Application under Section 17 of the Act for consideration by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal appointed hereby. Interim reliefs granted and obtaining as of today shall continue until the Learned Arbitral Tribunal decides to vary, vacate, enhance and substitute the same.

¶19

Given the efflux of time, the Petitioner is at liberty to modify or mould the contents of Section 9 Petition for its consideration as a Section 17 Application. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal is requested to convene at the earliest, preferably within a week of being approached to issue directions to the parties on how to proceed further in the matter.

¶20

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to

¶21

Page 2 of 5 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶22

Aarti Palkar

¶23

22.ARBP.371.2024 & Anr..doc

¶24

the decisions of a seven-judge bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶25

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶26

In these circumstances, both the captioned proceedings are hereby finally disposedof , in terms of the following order:

¶27

A] ADReS Now, an independent online dispute resolution institution is directed to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above;

¶28

B] The contact particulars of the Registrar, ADReS Now

¶29

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899 – (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶30

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶31

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597

¶32

Page 3 of 5 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶33

Aarti Palkar

¶34

are set out below:-

¶35

Email ID: [email protected] Address: 63, Palace Road, Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru, 560001. Website: www.adresnow.com

¶36

C] A copy of this Order will be communicated to ADReS Now by the Advocates for the Petitioner within a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded on the website of this Court. The Petitioner shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to ADReS Now along with a copy of this Order;

¶37

D] It is clarified that ADReS Now being an ODR institution, all proceedings will be conducted online through electronic mode, unless otherwise agreed between the appointed Arbitrator and the parties, with appropriate notification to the Registry of ADReS Now;

¶38

E] The Registry of ADReS Now is requested to appoint an independent arbitrator in compliance with the Act and its own rules consistent with the Act as soon as possible and in any event within a period of two weeks from receipt of a copy of this Order;

¶39

F] The parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Registry of ADReS Now and any other particulars as reasonably requested by the

¶40

Page 4 of 5 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶41

Aarti Palkar

¶42

22.ARBP.371.2024 & Anr..doc

¶43

Registry. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶44

G] All arbitral costs and fees of the arbitration shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs; and

¶45

H] The seat of the arbitration shall be deemed to be the same as the seat discernible from the Agreement while the arbitration shall primarily be conducted online.

¶46

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶47

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶48

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶49

Page 5 of 5 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶50

Aarti Palkar

Tata Capital Limited v. Dharmendra Singh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. Dharmendra Singh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Emcee Engineering Construction vs Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

Bucon Engineers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vijay Ladhani vs Maharashtra Natural Gas Ltd. through the Managing Director and Anr.

C S Sharma and Co. vs Union of Inida through the Engineer in Chief and 2 Ors.

State Bank of India vs Hcl Technologies Ltd.

State Bank of India vs Hcl Technologies Ltd.

State Bank of India vs Hcl Technologies Ltd.