Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Sardul Singh and Others — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs Sardul Singh and Others — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed: Ms. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate, appointed as Sole Arbitrator subject to statutory requirements; parties to appear before her on 26.09.2025 at 10:00 AM and thereafter as directed; Arbitrator's fee per the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, as amended; proceedings to be completed within the Section 29-A time limit; request letter along with copy of the order to be sent to the appointed Arbitrator.

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the applicant's application, the respondents having abstained from the proceedings despite service. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the respondents stood served yet opted to abstain from joining the proceedings, and the prayer in the application was confined to appointment of an Arbitrator who would ultimately adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties, the Court adjudicated the case on the basis of the available record instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely.

Ratio / Principle

The conditions to invoke the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act stand satisfied; consequently, the Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Key takeaways

Ms. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate, was appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements, and the learned Arbitrator was requested to comply with the mandate of Section 12 of the 1996 Act before proceeding further.ratio¶5
The parties were declared at liberty to raise all claims, defences, counter-claims and pleas before the Arbitrator, and any observation made in this order will not be binding on the learned Arbitrator.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Appointment of Sole Arbitrator — HDFC Bank Ltd. applied under Section 11 against Sardul Singh and others for appointment of an Arbitrator pursuant to an existing arbitration agreement and an unresolved dispute noticed through a demand notice. Respondents, though served, abstained from appearing; the Court held that with the prayer confined to appointment of an Arbitrator, the matter could not be kept pending indefinitely and adjudicated on the available record. Finding the conditions for invoking Section 11(6) satisfied, the Court appointed Ms. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate (Chandigarh), as Sole Arbitrator, subject to statutory requirements and compliance with Section 12; parties to appear on 26.09.2025; fee per Fourth Schedule; completion within Section 29-A timeline; all claims/defences/counter-claims left open and observations in the order declared non-binding on the Arbitrator.

ARB-72-2025

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

250 ARB-72-2025 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025

HDFC Bank Ltd. …Applicant

Versus

Sardul Singh and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present: - Mr. Sanchit Malik, Advocate for Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate for the applicant

None for the respondents ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)

Through instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘ 1996 Act ’), the applicant is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

As per office report, respondents stand served. On 31.07.2025, there was no representation of the respondents and in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned. Even today, there is no change in the situation. It appears that respondents have opted to abstain from joining the proceedings before this Court. The matter cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period especially when the prayer in the application is confined to appointment of an Arbitrator who ultimately would adjudicate rights and liabilities of the parties. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to adjudicate the case on the basis of available record.

The parties entered into arbitration agreement. A dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice upon the respondents seeking resolution of dispute through Arbitral Tribunal but to no MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of thisavail. order/judgment.

-2-

ARB-72-2025

Conditions to invoke power conferred by Section 11(6) of 1996 Act stand satisfied, thus, I hereby appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Ms. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate, residing at House No. 106, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh, Mobile No.9814436639, E-mail [email protected] is hereby appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements. The learned Arbitrator is requested to comply with mandate of Section 12 of 1996 Act before proceeding further.

The parties at the first instance will appear before the Arbitrator on 26.09.2025 at 10:00 AM and thereafter, as directed by learned Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, as amended.

The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29-A of the 1996 Act.

Needless to mention, parties would be at liberty to raise all the claims/defences/counter claims/pleas before the Arbitrator. Any observation made hereinabove will not be binding on the learned Arbitrator.

A request letter along with copy of this order be sent to Ms. Madhu P. Singh.

11.09.2025		(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
Mohit Kumar
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.