Allowed¶20

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Sushant Mehra

Delhi HC8 May 2026O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)/51/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of arbitrator's mandate; recusal of arbitrator on first date; Section 14 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 11(6) application ARB.P. 1182/2025; appointment order dated 30.01.2026; Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd v. Sushant Mehra; O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 51/2026; Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan, J.; 08.05.2026; new arbitrator appointed - Ritambhra Kalra; DIAC rules; Section 12 disclosure declaration; rights and contentions left open; petition allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the Sole Arbitrator appointed vide order dated 30.01.2026 terminated; Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate appointed as Arbitrator; arbitration to proceed under DIAC aegis per DIAC rules; declaration under Section 12 requested before entering upon the reference; all rights and contentions left open. ¶20

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Vs Sushant Mehra — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether, following the recusal of the previously appointed Sole Arbitrator on the very first date, the arbitrator's mandate should be terminated and a new arbitrator appointed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶11

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 is terminated.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate [Mob. 9773606577], is appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.

¶21

Key takeaways

The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi - 110003, and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator; DIAC may register the case forthwith.ratio¶22
The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.obiter¶23
All rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator; the petition stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 08.05.2026 in O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 51/2026 - Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd v. Sushant Mehra. Petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the arbitrator's mandate and appointment of a new arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator earlier appointed by the Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 in ARB.P. 1182/2025 (Section 11(6) petition) had recused on the very first date. The respondent raised no objection. Held: petition allowed; mandate of the Sole Arbitrator terminated; Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate appointed as Arbitrator; arbitration to be held under the aegis of DIAC, Delhi High Court, governed by DIAC rules including remuneration; arbitrator requested to furnish a Section 12 declaration before entering upon the reference; all rights and contentions of the parties left open; petition disposed of.

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 51/2026

¶4

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shanker Sen, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

SUSHANT MEHRA .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Ms. Pragiti Gautam, Adv.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 08.05.2026

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, „the Act‟) for termination of arbitrator‟s mandate and appointment of new arbitrator.

¶12

Mr. Shanker Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act being i.e. ARB.P. 1182/2025 in which a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2026.

¶13

He contends that the learned Arbitrator recused on the very first date, hence, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present petition.

¶14

Notice was issued in the present petition by this Court on 28.04.2026.

¶15

Ms. Pragiti Gautam, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and undertakes to file her vakalatnama within a period of three days. Let her do so as undertaken.

¶16

She, however, on instructions, submits that the respondent has no

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 12/05/2026 at 12:26:02

¶19

objection in case the mandate of the learned Arbitrator is terminated and a new Arbitrator is appointed.

¶20

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 is terminated.

¶21

Consequently, Ms. Ritambhra Kalra, Advocate: [Mob. 9773606577] is appointed as an Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. 12. The petition stands disposed of.

¶25

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶26

MAY 8, 2026/dss

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 12/05/2026 at 12:26:02

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Sushant Mehra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Sushant Mehra

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

Radico Khaitan Limited Vs M/S Pandey Enterprises & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Pushpa Devi & Ors.

M/S Kompassi Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Shyama Shyam P1 City Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Babu Rameshwar Dayal Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Tata Capital Limited Vs Sandeep Goel

Kotak Mahindra Prime Lt Vs Ruchika Sawhney and Anr.