Allowed¶8

Tata Capital Limited v. Sandeep Goel

Delhi HC8 May 2026ARB.P./381/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 appointment of arbitrator; Tata Capital Limited vs Sandeep Goel; ARB.P. 381/2026; Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan J.; Loan Agreement 24.09.2023 clause 9 arbitration clause; Section 21 demand notice 03.02.2026 no response; arbitrator appointed Ms. Ritambhra Kalra Advocate; DIAC Delhi International Arbitration Centre rules; Section 12 declaration; order dated 08.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate as Arbitrator; arbitration to be held under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, per DIAC rules; arbitrator requested 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; petition stands disposed of. ¶8

Tata Capital Limited Vs Sandeep Goel — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 24.09.2023 (arbitration clause 9).

¶1

Court's answer

Given the respondent's counsel's submissions (no dispute as to the existence of the arbitration clause and no objection to appointment of an Arbitrator), the present petition is allowed.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration of Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate; the arbitration is to be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, governed by the Rules of DIAC, with the arbitrator to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference, and all rights and contentions of the parties left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.), ARB.P. 381/2026, order dated 08.05.2026: Petition of TATA CAPITAL LIMITED under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for disputes arising out of Loan Agreement dated 24.09.2023 (arbitration clause 9) is allowed. Petitioner had invoked the clause by a Section 21 notice dated 03.02.2026 which elicited no response. Respondent SANDEEP GOEL's counsel submitted there was no dispute as to the existence of the arbitration clause and no objection to appointment. Disputes referred to arbitration of Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate, to be conducted under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, per DIAC rules; arbitrator requested to furnish a Section 12 declaration before entering upon the reference; all rights and contentions left open; petition disposed of.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 381/2026

¶4

TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nachiketa Vijay Suri, Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Kashish Aggarwal and Ms. Sbhubhangi Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SANDEEP GOEL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Neeraj Vashishth, Advocate. CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 08.05.2026

¶10

By way of this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter „the Act‟) petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of Loan Agreement dated 24.09.2023. Arbitration clause is clause 9 of the said agreement.

¶11

The disputes having arisen between the parties, petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by giving a notice dated 03.02.2026 in terms of Section 21 of the Act, which did not elicit any response.

¶12

Notice in the petition was issued by this on 09.03.2026.

¶13

Mr. Neeraj Vashishth, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondents and submits that there is no dispute as to the existence of arbitration clause in the aforesaid agreement. On instructions, he further submits that respondent has no objection in case an Arbitrator is appointed.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 12/05/2026 at 11:15:40

¶16

In view of the submissions of Mr. Vashishth, present petition is allowed.

¶17

The disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration of Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate: [Mob. 9773606577].

¶18

The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. The DIAC may register the case forthwith.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶23

MAY 8, 2026/ jg

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 12/05/2026 at 11:15:40

Tata Capital Limited v. Sandeep Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. Sandeep Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radico Khaitan Limited Vs M/S Pandey Enterprises & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi & Ors.

M/S Kompassi Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Shyama Shyam P1 City Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Sushant Mehra

Babu Rameshwar Dayal Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Prime Lt Vs Ruchika Sawhney and Anr.