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) 10433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J
Hero Motocorp Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Petal Automotion – Respondent
ARB.P. 688/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Malhotra, Tuhina Kakkar, Aryan Jha
For the Respondents: None

The Court may defer an application under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the contract mandates a preliminary negotiation mechanism that has not yet been exhausted by the parties.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator based on an arbitration clause in the dealer agreement. The court examined whether the preconditions for arbitration had been met. It was found that the respondent had previously expressed willingness for amicable settlement, warranting the exhaustion of the stipulated negotiation process before invoking court jurisdiction. The central issue was whether the parties had exhausted the mandatory pre-arbitration negotiation mechanism prescribed in the agreement. The court reasoned that since clause 24.15(b) necessitates a preliminary process of mutual consultation, and given the respondent's willingness to negotiate, the court should not invoke its jurisdiction under S. 11 of the Act until such process is meaningfully explored. The court directed that the matter be deferred pending the parties' upcoming scheduled meetings to attempt an amicable settlement.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petition, arbitration clause, and existing negotiation notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. judicial requirement to exhaust mandatory pre-arbitration negotiation procedures. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

O R D E R

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 24.15 of the Authorized Dealer Agreement dated 13.12.2019 [“Agreement”] as between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. The said Clause reads as under:

“24.15 Arbitration and Dispute Resolution

(a) Any dispute or difference between the Parties arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its interpretation, existence, performance, validity, or termination, either during the term of the Agreement or at anytime thereafter, will ,be settled between the Patties through friendly consultations and negotiations.

(b) If no settlement can be reached through friendly consultations and negotiations as discussed in Article 23.15(a) of this Agreement within thirty (30) days of one Party delivering a notice of the dispute or difference to the other Party, then such dispute will be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Article 23 .15. (c) The arbitration proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").

(d) The arbitration proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"). The Dispute will be referred to .a so le arbitrator as may be appointed by the mutual consent of the Parties. In the event that the parties fail to appoint the arbitrator within fifteen (15) days from date of initiation of discussion, the arbitrator will be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

(e) The arbitration proceedings will be held at New Delhi and the language to be used in the arbitral proceedings will be English. (f) The prevailing Party in the arbitration proceedings will be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, if any, and all other costs and expenses in relation to the arbitration proceedings unless the arbitrators for good cause determine otherwise.

(g) The Parties shall co-operate in good faith to expedite (to the maximum extent practicable) the conduct of any arbitral proceedings commenced under this Agreement. When any Dispute is under arbitration, except for the matters under Dispute, the Parties shall continue to exercise their remaining respective rights and fulfil their remaining respective obligations under this Agreement.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the statutory requirement under Section 21 of the Act stands fulfilled by virtue of the Notice dated 06.02.2026, to which a Reply dated 07.03.2026 was issued by the Respondent.

3. A perusal of paragraph no. 13 of the said Reply would indicate that the Respondent has expressed its willingness to engage in discussions for an amicable settlement of disputes. Notwithstanding the same, the present Petition has been instituted by the Petitioner.

4. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that Clause 24.15(b) of the Agreement contemplates a preliminary mechanism of mutual negotiations between the parties, which, coupled with the Respondent’s expressed willingness, warrants that such process be meaningfully explored and exhausted prior to invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Act.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a meeting between the officials of the parties is scheduled on 29.04.2026, and accordingly seeks that the matter be deferred to a date subsequent thereto.

6. In view of the aforesaid, list on 11.05.2026.

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