$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1842/2025 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED TRANSFEREE OF TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanidhya Sonthalia and Ms. Ekta Bhasin, Advs.

versus BEST HAWK INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Saif Uddin Khan, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

2. The brief facts are that the respondents approached the petitioner for financial assistance. The petitioner sanctioned a Channel Finance Facility to the tune of Rs. 2.50 crores. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Loan Cum Guarantee Agreement dated 23.03.2023. The respondent No.1 is the principal borrower and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the guarantors.

3. The said Agreement contains an arbitration clause being Clause No.

12 which reads as under:-

“12. Arbitration If any dispute, difference or claim arises between any of the Obligors and the Lender in connection with the Facility or as to the interpretation, validity, implementation or effect of the Facility Documents or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties under these T&Cs or alleged breach of the Facility Documents or anything done or omitted to be done pursuant to the Facility Documents, the same shall be settled by arbitration by a sole arbitration to be appointed as per the procedure below and to be held at such place as agreed by the Parties in Serial No. 17 of Annexure 1 hereto of the Agreement. The Party involving the arbitration (“Claimant”) shall address a notice to the other Party (Respondent”) suggesting the names of not more than three arbitrators, all of whom shall be either retired Judges of the District Court, High Court or the Supreme Court or a lawyer having minimum 10 years’ relevant experience. The Respondent shall either:

(i) Confirm in writing acceptance of one amongst the proposed names as the sole arbitrator to the Claimant within a period of ten (10) days from the date of notice (“Notice Period”): or (ii) Convey objection, if any, in writing to the Claimant, against the proposed names of the sole arbitrator within the said Notice Period.

However, if the Claimant does not receive any response from the Respondent within the said Notice Period, the Claimant shall be entitled to nominate any one person from amongst the proposed three names as the sole arbitrator and such arbitrator shall be deemed to be appointed by both the parties. In the event, the Respondent conveys its objection as per (ii) above then the sole arbitrator will be appointed by a Court having jurisdiction. The arbitration shall be conducted under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 together with its amendments, any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force. The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in English language. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the Obligor/s.”

4. Since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 22.09.2025 and thereafter filed the present petition.

5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, has no objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator.

6. I am satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration clause and there are disputes between the parties which need to be adjudicated through the arbitral mechanism.

7. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

i) Mr. Ruchi Narula, Advocate (Mob. No. 9810084123) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred t