Dismissed¶16

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Shubham Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2026ARB.P./85/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ARB.P. 85/2026, Delhi High Court, decided 10.04.2026, Mini Pushkarna J. Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Shubham Kumar & Anr.; Car Finance Agreement dated 31.05.2023; seat/place of arbitration stamped as Delhi but agreement executed at Dehradun, Uttarakhand; respondents stationed in Uttarakhand; holding: mere mention of Delhi as arbitration venue does not confer territorial jurisdiction on Delhi courts; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file in court of territorial jurisdiction; no cases cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file the same before the court of territorial jurisdiction. ¶16

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

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 85/2026

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Saxena, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SHUBHAM KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

O R D E R % 10.04.2026

¶9

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 dispute arising out of the Car Finance Agreement dated 31^st May, 2023 between the parties.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a stamp on the Agreement, which shows the place of arbitration as Delhi.

¶11

However, perusal of the Agreement between the parties shows that the same has been executed in Dehradun, Uttarakhand and perusal of the Memo of Parties shows that the respondents are also stationed at Uttarakhand.

¶12

Accordingly, considering the fact that the Agreement in question between the parties has been executed in Dehradun and that the respondents are also located in Uttarakhand, this Court is of the view that mere mention of place of arbitration as Delhi would not confer jurisdiction to the Courts at Delhi, for the purposes of the present petition.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 13/04/2026 at 13:33:54

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file the same in the Court hearing territorial jurisdiction.

¶16

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file the same in the Court of territorial jurisdiction.

¶17

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶18

APRIL 10, 2026/ au

¶19

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 13/04/2026 at 13:33:54

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Shubham Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Shubham 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

Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Ministry Op Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India

M/S Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Robbins Tunneling and Trenchless Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

Piyush Gambhir Vs Sorting Hat Solutions Private Limited

Panchanan International Private Limited Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Lifewell Diagnostics Private Limited Vs Micron Laboratory

Shri Naveet Vs Shri Lal Singh Gahlot and Anr.