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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1056

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankhar, J
Catalyst Trusteeship Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Sahni – Respondent
ARB.P. 1981/2025|ARB.P. 2011/2025|ARB.P. 2017/2025|O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 315/2025|O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 316/2025|O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 317/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jayant Mehta, Prashant Kumar, Nikita Menon, Om Shelat
For the Respondents: Akhil Shankhwar, Raunak Sathpathy, Vardan Mittal

The jurisdiction of a referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to the prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving questions of merit, frivolity, and interim measures for the Arbitral Tribunal.

Headnote:The case involves a petition filed under S. 11(6) and S. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arising out of a Debenture Trust Deed and a Deed of Guarantee. The petitioner sought the constitution of an arbitral tribunal due to the failure of the respondents to honor repayment obligations. The Court, adhering to the principle that its scope of inquiry at the referral stage is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, determined that the appointment of an arbitrator was warranted as per the contract. The core issue before the Court was the appointment of an arbitrator and the handling of interim applications under S. 9. The court reasoned that in light of established jurisprudence—specifically referencing Supreme Court rulings—the referral court’s jurisdiction is narrow, and matters regarding merit or frivolity should be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself. The parties mutually agreed to dispense with a three-arbitrator panel in favor of a sole arbitrator appointed via the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. The court appointed a sole arbitrator, converted the pending S. 9 petitions into applications under S. 17 of the Act to be adjudicated by the arbitrator, and ordered that the existing interim order shall continue until the arbitrator disposes of the applications, thereby disposing of the petitions.

Table of Content
1. existence of a valid arbitration agreement and dispute between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. referral court’s limited jurisdiction is restricted to verifying existence of the arbitration agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. conversion of pending section 9 interim petitions to section 17 applications under the arbitral tribunal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

ARB.P. 1981/2025, ARB.P. 2011/2025, ARB.P. 2017/2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [“ the Act ”] seeking an order to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. The facts are that the Petitioner is registered as a debenture trustee under the SEBI (Debenture Trustee) Regulations, 1993 and was appointed as the debenture trustee by Swastik Homebuild Private Limited ("Principal Borrower") under the Debenture Trustee Agreement dated 11.01.2021.

3. The debenture trustee had advanced loans by subscribing to the debentures of Swastik Homebuild Private Limited. To secure the investment, a Debenture Trust Deed and a Deed of Guarantee were entered into between the Principal Borrower and its Personal Guarantors (Respondents).

4. Since the Respondents failed to honour their commitments to comply with their obligations in repayment schedules, there were some CIRP proceedings initiated by the Petitioner.

5. Subsequently, the Petitioner invoked arbitration in terms of clause 7.8 of the Deed of Personal Guarantee, which reads as under:

“7.8 Arbitration

7.8.1 Any dispute, controversy, claim or disagreement of any kind whatsoever between or among the Parties in connection with or arising out of this Deed or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof (hereinafter referred to as a "Dispute") shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration irrespective of the amount in Dispute or whether such Dispute would otherwise be considered justifiable or ripe for resolution by any court.

7.8.2 Seat and Venue of Arbitration: The venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi. The seat of the arbitration shall be Delhi and the arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or alteration thereof for the time being in force ("Act"), which shall be deemed to have been incorporated to this Clause.

7.8.3 Number of Arbitration: The number of arbitrators shall be 3 (three) and shall be appointed by in accordance with the Act upon one party serving a notice with respect to the Dispute.

7.8.4 Language of Arbitration: The proceedings of the arbitration shall be conducted in English language.

7.8.5 Time: The arbitral tribunal shall render its final award within 6 (six months from the date of appointment of the complete arbitral tribunal, unless the Parties agree that such limit be extended.

7.8.6 Award and Apportionment of Costs: The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitral tribunal's decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration, including, without limitation, the fees of the arbitration and the arbitration tribunal, shall be borne equally by each Party to the dispute or claim and each Party shall pay its own fees, disbursements and other charges of its counsel, except as may be determined by the Related Agreement, to be decided by the First Tribunal in a single arbitral proceeding together with the Existing Arbitration. In deciding whether to consolidate arbitrations, the First Tribunal shall have regard to, inter alia, whether:

(i) there are issues of fact or law common to the arbitrations so that a consolidated proceeding would be more efficient than separate proceedings;

ii) the rights to relief claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and

(iii) either Party would be materially prejudiced as a result of consolidation, through undue

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