$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI [

Date of Decision: 10.02.2026 + ARB.P. 2058/2025 MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Arunima Sinh Jadaun, Advocate.

versus MR ANKIT SINGH PROPREITOR OF FOOTOX FOOTWEAR AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Loan Agreement [“Agreement”] dated 15.07.2023 on the ground that certain disputes have arisen inter se the parties in accordance with Clause 8.2 of the Agreement as between the parties. Clause 8.2 of the Agreement reads as follows:

"8.2. Arbitration: Any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at any time hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the subject matter of this Agreement), including, without limitation, any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, construction, performance, enforcement, rights and liabilities of the Parties, or termination ("Dispute") thereof shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended ("Arbitration Act"). The Dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator duly appointed by the Parties with mutual consent failing which the sole arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Act. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be at Delhi and the language of proceedings shall be English. The award rendered shall be in writing and shall set out the reasons for the arbitrator's decision. The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne equally by each Party, with each Party paying for its own fees and costs including attorney fees, except as may be determined by the arbitration."

2. The material on record indicates that pursuant to the disputes that arose between the parties, a Notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 3.09.2025 was issued by the Petitioner. The same is annexed to the present Petition as “Document-4.”

3. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present Petition seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

4. Before adverting to the submissions, this Court is cognizant of the scope of interference at the stage of a Petition under Section 11 of the Act. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act has been fairly well settled. A Coordinate bench of this Court, in Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd [2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022] has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. The Court held as under:-

“ 9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning,¹ while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re² has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else.

10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no. 114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.,³ and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,⁴ that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would not apply after the decision of Re