Axis Finance Limited Vs Satariya Dipak Kumar & Anr.

$~5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ARB.P. 494/2026

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abu John Mathew and Mr. Shubham Mahajan, Advocates Mob: 9871536016 Email: [email protected]

¶5

versus

¶6

SATARIYA DIPAK KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

%

¶9

O R D E R 21.04.2026

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of a Loan Agreement dated 14^th August, 2020.

¶11

Notice had been issued to the respondents on the last date of hearing.

¶12

As per the Office Noting, the respondents stand served by E-mail sent by the Registry. Further, affidavit of service has also been filed by the petitioner, showing the proof of service to the respondents.

¶13

However, none appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, despite service.

¶14

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to deal with the matter.

¶15

As per the facts on record, the respondents approached the petitioner for availing a mortgage loan. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner disbursed a loan of Rs.19,92,638/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs Ninety-Two Thousand Six

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

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 27/04/2026 at 11:17:47

¶18

Hundred and Thirty-Eight), which had to be repaid in 180 equal monthly instalments. However, the respondents failed to comply with the repayment terms and conditions, as stipulated in the Loan Agreement.

¶19

As per the statement of account maintained by the petitioner, the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,03,504/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Four), as on 09^th December, 2024. Constrained by the continued default of the terms of the Loan Agreement, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide Notice dated 09^th December, 2024, sent under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, and sought consent of the respondents to appoint a sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The same was duly served upon the respondents.

¶20

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the arbitration clause between the parties, contained in Clause 28 of the Loan Agreement, which is reproduced as under:

¶21

Perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause clearly shows that there is a

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 27/04/2026 at 11:17:47

¶25

valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, which stipulates the reference of disputes between the parties to a sole Arbitrator, in accordance with the arbitration mechanism provided therein.

¶26

Further, it has been agreed between the parties that the Courts of Mumbai or Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction and that the place of arbitration shall be either Mumbai or Delhi. The petitioner has chosen Delhi to be the place of arbitration, which is a valid choice as per the arbitration clause between the parties. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator, in terms of the aforesaid clause 28 between the parties. 11. This Court notes that the petitioner has an approximate claim of Rs. 20,03,504/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred and Four). 12. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that there are disputes between the parties and a valid arbitration clause exists, as per which, the disputes are to be adjudicated by way of arbitration.

¶27

Accordingly, there is no impediment in appointing a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The following directions are issued in this regard:

¶28

i. Ms. Khushboo Nahar, Advocate, (Mobile No.: 9873940695) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶29

ii. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.

¶30

iii. The Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, prior to entering into the reference. In the event that there is any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment, on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

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 27/04/2026 at 11:17:47

¶33

iv. It shall be open to the respondents to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceeds.

¶34

v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, the arbitrability of any of the claims and/or counter-claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on the merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶35

vi. The parties shall approach the Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from today.

¶36

The petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.

¶37

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance.

¶38

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶39

APRIL 21, 2026/ ak

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

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 27/04/2026 at 11:17:47

Axis Finance Limited v. Satariya Dipak Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Finance Limited v. Satariya Dipak Kumar & Anr.

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

M S Lakshmi Infrastructure and Developers India Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Supreme Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sterling Vehicle and General Sales Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Blue Oktopus Communications Private Limited Vs Bhumika Enterprises Private Limited

Marketing King Online Private Limited and Ors. Vs Sh. Sahil Gupta

Ranjeet Singh Vs M/S Bajwa Automobiles

Axis Finance Limited Vs Prasad Venkataiah Dakarapu