Disposed

Hero Fincorp Limited v. Swastik Pipe Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC20 May 2026O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)/178/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a petition for pre-arbitral interim measures. The Court appointed an arbitrator, decided to treat the Section 9 petition as one under Section 17, and disposed of the matter pending determination of the Section 17 application on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Rachna Srivastava as Arbitrator; Petition treated under Section 17; Matter disposed of pending decision on merits.

Hero Fincorp Limited Vs Swastik Pipe Limited & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 178/2026

¶4

HERO FINCORP LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Harsh Sinha, Ms. Anushka Verma, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SWASTIK PIPE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain and Ms. Kanika Sharma, Advocates

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.05.2026 1. The present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner seeking pre-arbitral interim measures.

¶11

The facts, in brief, leading to the present Petition are that the Respondents herein approached the Petitioner for grant of financial facility towards working capital in the form of Bill Discounting. It is stated that the Petitioner herein sanctioned a loan facility to the Respondents towards working capital for a term of 12 months. It is stated that the Loan Facility was renewed from time to time and by way of Supplemental Sanction Letter dated 06.01.2025, the Petitioner herein renewed the credit facility for working capital to the Respondents in the sum of Rs.5 crores. It is stated that a Facility Agreement dated 06.01.2025 was also entered into between the parties.

¶12

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 01/06/2026 at 12:01:48

¶13

It is stated that since the Respondents failed to adhere to the terms of the Facility Agreement, disputes have arisen between the parties. It is stated that Clause 20.1 of the Facility Agreement contains the Arbitration Clause which provides for recourse to arbitration, for resolution of disputes between the parties arising out of the Agreement.

¶14

The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking interim protection, attach the bank accounts of the Respondents pending constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

¶15

The Parties, by mutual consent, have agreed that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes. 6. Accordingly, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Sr. Adv. (Mobile No. 9811152039) is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Parties.

¶16

The present Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be treated as one under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same be decided within three weeks from the date of entering reference.

¶17

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 a week of entering reference. 10. It is expected the Ld. Arbitrator will decide the Section 17 application on the weight of the merits, contentions raised by both sides and on the documents being adduced by both sides without being influenced by this

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 01/06/2026 at 12:01:48

¶21

Order.

¶22

The petition is disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶23

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶24

MAY 20, 2026 Rahul

¶25

Hero Fincorp Limited v. Swastik Pipe Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hero Fincorp Limited v. Swastik Pipe Limited & Ors.

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

Smt Bimla Devi Vs Smt Sarvan Devi & Ors.

Tata Capital Limited Vs Vinita Gupta & Anr.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs United Forum of Mtnl Unions & Associations & Ors.

Dhara Motor Finance Ltd. Vs Shadab and Ors.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Kewal Krishan Kanodia Proprietor of Aditya Exports and Anr.

Hindon Mercantile Ltd. Vs Neogen Diagnostics and Poly Clinic Private Limited & Ors.