Allowed¶22

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Gyan Babu Sharma & Anr.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of Arbitrator

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026ARB.P./97/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator; seat of arbitration Delhi; Clause 32 arbitration clause Schedule-I; car finance agreement default; foreclosure letter demand; Section 21 notice; DIAC aegis; Section 12(2) disclosure; Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Gyan Babu Sharma; Delhi High Court ARB.P.; Subramonium Prasad J.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under the Car Finance Agreement dated 10.06.2022; arbitration under DIAC aegis with fees per DIAC schedule; all rights and contentions on claims/counter-claims kept open; petition disposed of with pending applications, if any. ¶22

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Gyan Babu Sharma & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between the parties arising under the Car Finance Agreement dated 10.06.2022. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Since disputes have arisen between the parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, the Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Clause 32 of the Agreement provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration, and the place of arbitration per Schedule-I is Delhi, meaning the seat of arbitration is in Delhi.

¶17

Key takeaways

Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.ratio¶17
The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), abide by its rules and regulations, and the Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees.ratio¶17
The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two weeks of entering on reference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Gyan Babu Sharma & Anr. (Delhi High Court, ARB.P. 97/2026, decided 10.03.2026, Subramonium Prasad, J.). Petition filed under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes under a Car Finance Agreement dated 10.06.2022; loan of Rs. 5,85,452/- repayable in 55 months at 14.65% p.a.; foreclosure demand of Rs.7,65,232.39/-; Section 21 notice issued 01.10.2025. Clause 32 arbitration clause read with Schedule-I fixes the place (seat) of arbitration at Delhi. Court appointed Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of DIAC, fees per DIAC schedule; disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering on reference; claims/counter-claims and contentions left open; no expression on merits. Petition allowed/disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 97/2026

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rishabh Saxena, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

GYAN BABU SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.03.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under a Car Finance Agreement dated 10.06.2022 ( hereinafter referred to as “Agreement” ).

¶12

Material on record indicates that the Respondents had approached the Petitioner for availing a car finance facility. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 5,85,452/- was advanced by the Petitioner to the Respondents which was to be repaid within a period of 55 months at an interest of 14.65% per annum. It is stated that the loan facility was released to the Respondents for purchase of Maruti Wagon R LXI CNG bearing registration number UP32MW7522. It is stated that the Respondents have not adhered to the repayment schedule. It is stated that a Foreclosure Letter dated 01.09.2025 was sent to the Respondents asking the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.7,65,232.39/-

¶13

ARB.P. 97/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶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 13/03/2026 at 12:18:15

¶16

which according to the Petitioner is due and payable. It is stated that since the Respondents failed to honour their commitments, a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking arbitration was sent to the Respondents on 01.10.2025. It is stated that despite notice, the Respondents have failed to pay the outstanding amount.

¶17

Notice was issued in the petition on 15.01.2026. Despite service, there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents today. 4. Clause 32 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause by which the Parties have decided to get their disputes adjudicated through arbitration. The said clause specifically states that the place of arbitration shall be in accordance with Schedule-I of the Agreement which states that the place of arbitration would be at Delhi, meaning thereby the seat of the arbitration is in Delhi. 5. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the Parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 6. Accordingly, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate (Mob. No.9799150333) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 7. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

¶18

The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two weeks of entering on reference.

¶19

ARB.P. 97/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 13/03/2026 at 12:18:15

¶22

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 10. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 11. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶23

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶24

MARCH 10, 2026 S. Zakir

¶25

ARB.P. 97/2026 Page 3 of 3

¶26

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 13/03/2026 at 12:18:15

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Gyan Babu Sharma & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited v. Gyan Babu Sharma & 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

Apl Logistics (India) Private Limited Vs Jpfl Films Private Limited

M/S. Sunrise Sales Corporation Vs M/S. Rama Krishana Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Vinayak Enterprises Vs Arvinder Singh

M/S Gm Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ons Hospitality and Ors.

Mansoor Azam Vs Adnan Azam & Anr.

Ashima Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation