Axis Finance Limited Vs Soniya Manish Taneja & Anr.

By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter „the Act‟), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the business loan agreement dated 12.12.2020. Clause 35 is the arbitration clause.

¶10

The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide legal notice dated 07.02.2024, which did not elicit any response. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition.

¶11

Notice was issued in the present petition vide order dated 21.04.2026. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner along with two tracking reports, wherefrom it is borne out that notice sent through speed post has been delivered to both the addresses.

¶12

In that view of the matter, the respondents are taken to have been served. There is, however, no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act, the Court

¶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 20/05/2026 at 15:03:47

¶16

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.

¶17

The material on record, particularly the business loan agreement, prima facie, shows that it contains an arbitration clause. The respondents have also not appeared to controvert the submissions. The petition is therefore allowed.

¶18

The disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration of Mr. R.P.S. Yadav, Advocate; Enrl. No.D/410/93 [Mob. 9891370367].

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

As the respondents have not entered appearance in these proceedings, it is made clear that they may be served in accordance with the DIAC rules in the arbitration proceedings.

¶23

Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶25

MAY 18, 2026/ jg

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 20/05/2026 at 15:03:47

Axis Finance Limited v. Soniya Manish Taneja & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Finance Limited v. Soniya Manish Taneja & 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

Np Infraprojects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Joint Stock Company Industrial Association Vozrozhdenie

Digidart Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kfc Shoemaker Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited Now Amalgamated With Adity a Birla Finance Limited Vs Uprate Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. through Its Guarantors Directors Partners

Sudhir Kumar Mahajan Vs Adarsh Mahajan

Chatar Devi Angoori @ Angoore Devi Vs Jagdish Singh

Sh. Arun Batra Vs Ms. Bimla Devi Thru Lr'S and Ors.