M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Titu Singh — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Titu Singh — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate as Arbitrator; arbitration to be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003, governed by the DIAC Rules including as to the Arbitrator's remuneration; Arbitrator to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference; all rights and contentions of the parties left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator; respondent, having not entered appearance, to be served in accordance with the DIAC Rules in the arbitration proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the appointment letter dated 24.06.2024, whose Clause 13 is the arbitration clause. +2 more

Court's answer

The disputes between the parties are referred to the arbitration of Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate; the arbitration shall be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, and governed by the DIAC Rules, including as to the remuneration of the Arbitrator.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition: although the arbitration clause fixes no seat or venue, it confers sole and exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Delhi; additionally, the respondent was employed to work in Delhi and the appointment letter was issued from Delhi.

Key takeaways

The appointment letter placed on record contains an arbitration clause, and the respondent, though served, did not appear to controvert the averments in the petition; the Court is thereby satisfied prima facie of the existence of the arbitration agreement and allows the petition.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Petition by M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt Ltd for referral of disputes arising out of appointment letter dated 24.06.2024, whose Clause 13 is the arbitration clause — Arbitration clause silent on seat or venue but provides that Courts at Delhi alone shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction; respondent employed to work in Delhi and appointment letter issued from Delhi — Delhi High Court holds it has jurisdiction — At the S. 11 stage the Court is required only to satisfy itself prima facie as to the existence of the arbitration agreement — Appointment letter on record contains an arbitration clause; respondent served by ordinary process but did not enter appearance or controvert averments — Petition allowed — Disputes referred to Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate, under the aegis of DIAC per DIAC Rules including remuneration — Arbitrator to furnish declaration under S. 12 before entering upon reference — All rights and contentions left open — Respondent to be served in accordance with DIAC Rules in the arbitration proceedings.

$~3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ARB.P. 116/2026

M/S MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Preeti Kumari, Advocate.

versus

TITU SINGH .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

%

O R D E R 09.02.2026

By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘Act’), petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the appointment letter dated 24.06.2024. Clause 13 of the appointment letter is the arbitration clause.

As per the appointment letter, respondent was appointed to work in Delhi. The appointment letter has also been issued from Delhi.

The seat or venue of arbitration has not been mentioned in the arbitration clause. However, the arbitration clause mentions that Courts at Delhi alone shall have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the matter of arbitration.

Further, the respondent was employed to work in Delhi and the appointment letter was also issued from Delhi, therefore, this Court would

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 17/02/2026 at 11:54:31

have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

The disputes having arisen between the parties, petitioner invoked the arbitration vide legal notice dated 18.06.2025. However, the said notice did not elicit any response from the respondent. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 11 of the Act. 6. Notice in the petition was issued vide order dated 16.01.2026. The service report shows that respondent has been served by an ordinary process. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court is only required to satisfy itself, prima facie, as to the existence of the arbitration agreement.

On perusal of the appointment letter, which is placed on record, this Court finds that appointment letter contains an arbitration clause. The respondent has also not appeared to controvert the averments made in the petition. The petition is, therefore, allowed.

Accordingly, the disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration of Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Advocate [Mob.: 9910770710]. 10. The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and will be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

As the respondent has not entered appearance in these proceedings, it

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 17/02/2026 at 11:54:31

is made clear that the respondent must be served in accordance with DIAC Rules in the arbitration proceedings.

Petition stands disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/ jg

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 17/02/2026 at 11:54:31