Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of a sole arbitrator was withdrawn after counsel noted the arbitration clause specified Kanpur as seat, agreements were executed there, and the respondent resided there.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~51
TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shobha Gupta, Ms. Akshita Mishra, Advocates along with Ms. Ayushi Arora, AR.
versus
POONAM TRIPATHI .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MARCH 23, 2026/nd/dj
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 27/03/2026 at 11:18:16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator where the arbitration place, agreement execution, and parties were all at Kanpur.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd
Poonam Tripathi
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
