SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Del) 64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
M/S Paisalo Digital Limited (Formerly Known As S. E. Investments Limited) – Petitioner
Versus
M/S Sun Corp & Ors. – Respondent
ARB.P. 1022 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harshal Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Mr. Vikrant Kumar and Mr. Amar Bajpayee, Advocates.

The court held that its review under Section 11(6) is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, without delving into substantive disputes, which is for the Arbitrator to decide.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Petition for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator concerning disputes under a Loan Agreement dated 02.03.2015 - Respondents contest the invocation of arbitration standards in Section 21, claiming delay and limitation - The petition was deemed maintainable, judgment declared facilitating appointment of the Arbitrator. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 11, 14)

(B) Judicial Review - The court's examination scope under Section 11(6) is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement; it does not include adjudication of underlying disputes, which is reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal. (Paras 10, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Section 11 petition seeking an arbitrator's appointment, with respondents disputing the timely invocation of arbitration under Section 21, alleging limitation issues based on prior events. The disputes arose from a Loan Agreement where arbitration was previously initiated but challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court appointed an Arbitrator to resolve issues and clarified that any merits or contentions would remain open for the Arbitrator's decision.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the arbitration clause was validly invoked and if the current petition was maintainable after alleged delays.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that its role is to ensure arbitration agreement implementation and not to resolve disputes at this stage, aligning with the principle that judicial involvement should be minimal.

Result: Petition disposed of with an Arbitrator appointed.

Table of Content
1. petition for arbitrator appointment. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding arbitration notice validity. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court reviews previous decisions and limitations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. judicial discretion limited to arbitration agreement’s existence. (Para 11 , 12)
5. arbitrator appointed, with costs and rights reserved. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Act seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of resolution of disputes that are stated to have arisen inter se the parties arising out of the Clause 20 as set out inHypothecation/Loan Agreement dated 02.03.2015. The said clause reads as follows:

20. Any conflict, difference, controversies, or disputes arising between the parties, if not resolved mutually, shall be submitted/referred to the arbitration of the Sole Arbitrator. The notices like Demand Notice, Loan Recall - cum - Demand Notice and/or telephonic conversations/ mails shall be deemed to be sufficient proof for opportunity given to the Borrower and/ or Guarantor(s) for resolving the issues and efforts of Amicable Settlement made by the Company.

The Borrower and Guarantor (s) hereby agree and give their free consent to the Company i.e. SEIL to appoint I nominate any person/ professional as Sole Arbitrator without any prior consent or reference to them. Such rights of appointing an arbitrator are not questionable by the Borrower and /or the Guarantor (s). The notice for Appointment of Arbitrator and the Statement of Claims can be forwarded by the Company i.e. SEIL on the same day to the Arbitrator and the Borrower as well as the Guarantor(s) so as to facilitate early disposal of Arbitration proceedings.

The parties to this agreement agree for the following procedure regarding Arbitration Proceedings:-

a) The Statement of Claims will be forwarded by the Company i.e. SE IL along with all documents relied upon by the Company i.e. SEIL.

b) The Borrower and Guarantor (s) shall file their reply along with all the documents relied upon within 15 days of receiving of Statement of Claim or such other period as may specified by the Arbitrator.

c) The Company i.e. SEIL shall file rejoinder/ replication, if any, within 7 days or such other period as may be specified by the Arbitrator along with further documents. if required.

d) Sole Arbitrator will frame issues i.e. points of controversies between the parties.

e) Thereafter the Parties will file their Affidavit in Evidence in 7 Days along with further documents, if any.

f)Thereafter the parties will file their written submissions/arguments in 10 days.

g) If any party files any Application then the above proceedings will be followed without prejudice to their rights of that Application.

h) Hearing will be held on weekly basis or as the Sole Arbitrator think fit and proper.

i) The Arbitration Case would be decided on documentary evidence and Affidavits of parties and no verbal submissions shall be taken on record.

j) The Sole Arbitrator may decide the other procedural aspects and may change the above schedule if he/she thinks proper. Any notice/ document pursuant hereto shall be deemed to be duly served if sent by Registered Post/ Speed Post at addresses as mentioned in this Agreement or to any changed address if such change has been notified by either party hereto and such notice shall be deemed to take effect on third working day following the date of posting thereof. The parties have agreed that documents and correspondence may be served by fax or email and it shall be considered sufficient proof of delivery of documents.

The Parties have also agreed that in case of multiple loan transactions in which all or any of the Borrower and Guarantor(s) are same or belong to same group or family then the Company i.e. SEIL at its sole discretion, may initiate single Arbitration Proceedings for multiple l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top