Allowed

M/S Kew Precision Privtae Limited through Mr. Kunal Bhunsali v. Intec Capital Limited

Delhi HC20 Feb 2026EFA(COMM)/6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of Section 47 CPC objections to a unilaterally appointed arbitrator on the ground they belonged in a Section 34 challenge. Following Supreme Court precedent that jurisdictional objections may be raised in execution, the impugned order was quashed and objections remanded for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; appellant's Section 47 objections remanded to the Commercial Court for decision on merits, uninfluenced by the impugned order.

M/S Kew Precision Privtae Limited through Mr. Kunal… — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~34

¶2

* I�THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI

¶3

- EFA(COMM) 6/2026

¶4

M/S KEW PRECISION PRIVTAE LIMITED THROUGH MR. KUNAL BHUNSALI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Samman Vardhan Gautam, Ms. Khushi Sharma, Mr. Priyam Tiwari, Ms. Anshika Priyadarshini, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

INTEC CAPITAL LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pranav Goyal, Ms. Pooja Chaudhary, Mr. Vishant Singh and Ms. Mreeganka Goyal, Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHA�KAR HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

ORDER (ORAL)

20.02.2026

C. HARI SHA�KAR, J.

¶13

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16 February 2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-06, rejecting the appellant’s objection, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹ to the appointment of the arbitrator having been unilateral, on the ground that such a ground could not be taken in execution, and that the ground, if at all had to be raised in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶14

1 ‘CPC’ , hereinafter

¶15

Signature Not VerifiedEFA(COMM) 6/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:2 5.02.2026 13:51:58

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

2. The learned Commercial Court has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Anglo-American Metallurgical Coal (P) Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd² .

¶18

3. That decision was carried to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, in its judgment reported as MMTC Ltd. v. AngloAmerican Metallurgical Coal (P) Ltd .³ following Electrosteel Steel Limited v. ISPAT Carrier Private Limited⁴ , has held that objections which go to the route of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction could be raised even in execution proceedings. The view of the learned Single Judge to that effect has thereby been reversed, though the learned Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to examine the matter on merits and to hold against the appellant before it.

¶19

4. In that view of the matter, the ground on which the learned Commercial Court has not suited the appellant is clearly unsustainable.

¶20

5. Mr. Pranav Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent, also fairly agrees that the matter may be remanded to the learned Commercial Court for a decision on merits.

¶21

6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The objections filed by the appellant would now proceed for further adjudication uninfluenced by the impugned order.

¶22