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) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
Ascend Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Laxmi Foils Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent 
ARB.P. 1126 of 2025, I.A. 18454 of 2025 (Delay of 31 days in Refiling of the petition) & I.A. 1797 of 2026 (Delay of 2 days in filing the rejoinder)
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Verma, Mr. Saksham Thareja, Mr. Akhil Ranganathan and Mr. Pallav Arora, Adv.
For the Respondent:Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal and Ms. Lisa Sankrit, Advs.

The court confirmed that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, limiting judicial scrutiny to the agreement's existence, deferring substantive issues to arbitral proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Petitioners filed for appointing a sole arbitrator due to disputes arising from the Facilities Agreement dated 21.02.2022. Respondent contested the validity of the arbitration clause claiming the Agreement was an undated draft and therefore unenforceable. The Court established that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and appointed an arbitrator. (Paras 1, 12, 29)

(B) Judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement; substantive issues must be dealt with by the arbitration tribunal. (Paras 23-24)

(C) The court noted that despite challenges raised by the Respondent, all substantive objections should be deferred to the arbitral tribunal. (Paras 28, 25)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought arbitration for disputes arising over credit facilities provided to the Respondent, which failed to repay a due amount of Rs. 24,69,134/-. Legal notices were issued by the Petitioners, followed by an unsuccessful insolvency petition. (Paras 9, 10)

Findings of Court:
The Court found a prima facie arbitration agreement exists due to relevant documents exhibited and awarded the Petitioners' request to appoint an arbitrator. (Paras 27, 29)

Issues: The Respondent's contention against the validity of the arbitration agreement and the enforceability of the facility agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined it was bound to examine only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement while other contested matters such as 'accord and satisfaction' should be left for the arbitrator to address.

Result: Petition for appointment of an arbitrator was allowed and an arbitrator was appointed.

Table of Content
1. arbitration agreement and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. arguments regarding the validity of the arbitration clause (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. court's reasoning based on judicial precedents (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. order for appointing arbitrator and concluding decision (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, under Section 11 (6) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, has been filed seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of disputes stated to have arisen between the parties in relation to theFacilities Agreement dated 21.02.2022, [Agreements].

2. As stated in the Petition, in or around March 2022, the Respondent Company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading aluminium hot rolled products, aluminium cold rolled products and aluminium sheets, foils, etc. It is further stated in the Petition that the Petitioners had, from time to time, granted credit facilities/unsecured loans for the purpose of the Respondent Company's capital expenditure and general corporate expenses.

3. Thereafter, a Tripartite Share Purchase Agreement dated 03.02.2022, Share purchase agreement was entered into between the erstwhile shareholders, Respondent and one OMAT Business Pvt. Ltd., which is the fully-owned subsidiary of OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd.

4. Consequently, in order to discharge the liabilities of the Respondent Company under the credit facilities/unsecured loans granted by the Petitioners, OFB Tech Pvt. drafted and shared a Facilities Agreement vide email dated 07.02.2022.

5. It is further stated in the Petition that loans were also granted by the erstwhile shareholders of the Respondent Company, and in view thereof, two Facilities Agreements were drafted by OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd., being “Project Laxmi-USL (Shareholders as Lenders)” and “Project Laxmi-USL (Non-shareholders as Lenders)”.

6. It is stated that the Facilities Agreement in the present case, being Project Laxmi- USL (Non-Shareholder as Lenders), was duly executed by the Petitioners and delivered to the Respondent and to its parent company, OFB Tech Pvt. Ltd., on 21.02.2022.

7. It is stated in the Petition that the Agreement envisaged the Arbitration Clause being Clause 7.7, which reads as under :

7.7 Arbitration

7.7.1. If any dispute arises amongst the Parties in relation to or in connection with this Agreement (including in respect of the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach of any provision of this Agreement) (a “Dispute”), the Parties shall attempt to resolve such Dispute amicably through discussions amongst the senior executives of the Parties.

7.7.2. Arbitration. In the case of failure by the Parties to resolve the Dispute in the manner set out in Clause 7.7.1 above within 30 (thirty) days from the date when the Dispute arise, the Dispute shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The seat and venue of arbitration will be Delhi.

7.7.3. Each Party shall appoint 1 (one) arbitrator each, and the 3rd (third) arbitrator shall be appointed by the 2 (two) arbitrators so appointed (the “Arbitration Tribunal”).

7.7.4. Enforcement. The arbitral award(s) rendered by the Arbitration Tribunal shall be made in writing and shall be final and binding upon the Parties and shall set out the reasons for the Arbitration Tribunal's decision.”

8. It is further stated that upon the culmination of the Facilities Agreement, a total principal amount of Rs. 24,69,134/- came to be the amount repayable by the Respondent Company to the Petitioners.

9. Upon the failure of the Respondent Company to discharge its liability and repay the aforenoted amounts, the Petitioners issued legal notices dated 20.07.2022 and 26.07.2022 demandi

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