Disposed

Tata Capital Limited v. M/S. S.R. Steels

Delhi HC28 Apr 2026ARB.P./845/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator over disputes on a working capital demand loan of Rs. 2.5 crores after failed mediation. The Court found a valid arbitration clause, noted the respondent MSME had not approached the Facilitation Council, appointed Ms. Shilpa Ohri as sole Arbitrator with proceedings under DIAC Rules, leaving contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Sole Arbitrator (Ms. Shilpa Ohri) appointed; proceedings under DIAC Rules; parties to approach arbitrator within two weeks.

Tata Capital Limited Vs M/S. S.R. Steels — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 845/2025

¶4

TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Savyasachi Kr. Sahai with Ms. Madhumita Bagchi, Advocates. (M): 9667838620 Email: [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S. S.R. STEELS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jawahar Lal, Advocate. (M): 9312664652 Email: [email protected]

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R % 28.04.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 11 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 the Agreement For Working Capital Demand Loan dated 22^nd February, 2024 (“Loan Agreement”).

¶12

The parties vide order dated 01^st December, 2025, had been referred to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, as per the Mediation Report dated 16^th April, 2026, the matter was closed as “not settled” .

¶13

Accordingly, the Court proceeds with the matter.

¶14

As per the facts on record, the respondent approached the petitioner

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶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 04/05/2026 at 13:04:51

¶18

for financial assistance vide Loan Application dated 01^st February, 2024, in order to avail a working capital demand loan. Pursuant to the same, the parties entered into the Loan Agreement dated 22^nd February, 2024, whereunder the petitioner agreed to sanction a loan for an amount of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only), and the respondent undertook to repay the amount as per the terms and conditions put forth in the said Loan Agreement.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that disputes have arisen between the parties owing to the respondent’s continued default in repaying the due amounts, as well as the interest thereupon.

¶20

Subsequently, the petitioner, being constrained by the respondent’s continued default, issued a Legal Notice dated 29^th March, 2025, for recall of the aforesaid loan. Additionally, by way of the said Notice, the petitioner also invoked Arbitration under Clause 12 of the Loan Agreement in terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, which was duly served upon the respondent.

¶21

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Loan Agreement between the parties, which contains an Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 12, and the same reads as under:

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶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 04/05/2026 at 13:04:51

¶25

Further, this Court notes that Clause 13 of the Loan Agreement reads as under:

¶26

Perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, i.e., 12 and 13 of the Loan Agreement clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, wherein, the parties have agreed that the disputes between them shall be resolved by way of arbitration, and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

¶27

This Court notes that, as per Annexure 1 of the Loan Agreement, the place of execution is at Delhi. In addition to this, the serial nos. 16 and 17 in Annexure 1 of the Loan Agreement stipulates that the place of arbitration as well as jurisdiction shall be at Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata, respectively.

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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 04/05/2026 at 13:04:51

¶30

Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed at Delhi by validly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (“MSME”). 13. On a pointed query by this Court, as to whether the respondent has approached the MSME Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has not approached the MSME Facilitation Council. 14. Accordingly, there is no impediment before this Court for the purpose of appointing of an Arbitrator, since the process under the MSMED Act has not been commenced by the respondent. 15. This Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is an approximate claim of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs only).

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the process of arbitration be conducted under the aegis and Rules of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that there are disputes between the parties and that there exists a valid arbitration clause for adjudication of the said disputes. Thus, there is no impediment to the appointment of a sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 12 of the Loan Agreement between the parties.

¶33

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the following directions are issued:

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 04/05/2026 at 13:04:51

¶37

i) Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Advocate (Mob: +91-9871900539) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the aegis and Rules of DIAC, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned 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 of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court. v) It shall be open to the respondent to raise counter-claims, if any, in arbitration proceedings.

¶38

vi) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. vii) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from today.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 20. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, as well as, the Secretary, DIAC, for their information and compliance.

¶40

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶41

APRIL 28, 2026 c

¶42

Page 5 of 5

¶43

Tata Capital Limited v. M/S. S.R. Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Limited v. M/S. S.R. Steels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nk Toll Road Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Somdev Kishore Devvarman & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Dhupar Vs Chintan N Parikh & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Djm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Jabalpur Airport

Kunal Sarup Vs Kaveri Sarup

M/S. Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Clinic Shakti & Anr.