Allowed¶19

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Rahul Lohiya & Anr.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) application

Delhi HC4 May 2026ARB.P./599/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of arbitrator; Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024; Clause 33 arbitration clause; Section 21 invocation notice dated 29.12.2025 unanswered; prima facie existence of arbitration agreement; referral to Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate; DIAC rules; Section 12 declaration; Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Rahul Lohiya; ARB.P. 599/2026; Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan, J.; 04.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate as arbitrator; dispute referred to arbitration under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, governed by DIAC Rules; petition allowed and stands disposed of. ¶19

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Rahul Lohiya & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate as arbitrator; dispute referred to arbitration under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, governed by DIAC Rules; petition allowed and stands disposed of.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024, which contains an arbitration clause (Clause 33).

¶12

Court's answer

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; all other questions are to be left to the determination of the learned Arbitrator.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024 prima facie demonstrates that it contains an arbitration clause.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.ratio¶19
The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.ratio¶20
The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) application — Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Rahul Lohiya & Anr. (Delhi High Court, Vikas Mahajan, J., 04.05.2026): Dispute arising out of a Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024 containing an arbitration clause (Clause 33); invocation notice dated 29.12.2025 under Section 21 went unanswered; respondents served by Speed Post and unrepresented. Court held that at the Section 11 stage it need only satisfy itself prima facie of the existence of the arbitration agreement, leaving all other questions to the arbitrator; petition allowed and dispute referred to arbitration of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate, under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, governed by DIAC Rules including remuneration; arbitrator to furnish Section 12 declaration before entering upon the reference; all rights and contentions of the parties left open.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 599/2026

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Nag, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAHUL LOHIYA & ANR. .....Respondents

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶11

% 04.05.2026

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, „the Act‟) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of a Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024. The Agreement provides for resolution of disputes by Arbitration. Clause 33 of the agreement is an arbitration clause.

¶13

The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration by giving a notice dated 29.12.2025, in terms of Section 21 of the Act, which did not elicit any response. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition under Section 11 of the Act.

¶14

Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 07.04.2026.

¶15

The affidavit of service has been filed along with the tracking report by the petitioner which shows that the respondents have been served with the notice sent by way of Speed Post. Accordingly, the respondents are taken to have been served. They are nonetheless unrepresented.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 07/05/2026 at 11:33:35

¶18

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 all other questions have to be left to the determination to the learned Arbitrator.

¶19

A perusal of Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2024, prima facie, demonstrates that it contains arbitration clause. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration of Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate: [Mob.: 9310747175] Email ID: [email protected].

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. 11. The petition stands disposed of.

¶23

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶24

MAY 4, 2026/dss

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 07/05/2026 at 11:33:35

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Rahul Lohiya & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Rahul Lohiya & 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

Mr. Vineet Kumar Saigal Vs Mr. Vijay Kumar Rewal & Ors.

Mis Georgina Cars Vs Mis CARS24 Services Private Limited

Mrs Parminder Rekhi Vs Mr Amanjit Singh Ahluwalia & Anr.

Raj Kumar Jain Vs M/S Shree Balaji Enterprisies and Anr.

Dr Rashmi Saluja Vs Religare Enterprises Limited

Ms PS2 Consultants Vs Ms Alpha Corp Development Private Limited