Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Avneesh Jhingan, J
Ugro Capital Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maximal Finance And Investments Limited – Respondent
ARB.P. 11/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Devesh Khara, Lakshyabhatia, Devesh Dubey, Abhinav Kalia, Bismit Nayak
For the Respondents: Divyanshi Rai, Sugandha Batra, Taruna, Vishal Sharma, Shubh Gautam, Varsh Bhatnagar
Where parties fail to reach a consensus on the appointment of an arbitrator within the stipulated period, the court, under S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has the authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes.
Headnote:The case involves a petition under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator due to a failure of the agreed mechanism for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The facts indicate an Alliance Agreement and a Deed of Continuing Corporate Guarantee between the parties, leading to disputes over breach of agreement and repayment obligations. The petitioner invoked arbitration, but the respondent failed to consent to proposed institutions. The court observed that the respondent has no objection to referring the matter to arbitration. The issue before the court was whether the mechanism for constituting the arbitral tribunal had failed, necessitating judicial intervention. The court noted that despite the lapse of the stipulated period, no consensus was reached, justifying the exercise of its power to appoint a sole arbitrator. The petition is allowed by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, with proceedings to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, subject to the provisions of S. 12 of the Act.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to constitute an arbitral tribunal invokes court intervention. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court grants relief by appointing a sole arbitrator for adjudication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
O R D E R
22.04.2026
1. The present petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an Alliance Agreement dated 10.08.2022 under which the respondent acted as a sourcing and servicing partner for the petitioner’s lending business. Pursuant thereto, the respondent executed a Deed of Continuing Corporate Guarantee dated 18.06.2024 guaranteeing repayment obligations of borrowers sourced by it. On 18.08.2025, the petitioner issued a notice alleging breach of the agreement and guarantee and called upon the respondent to (i) release ₹71,00,000/- with interest, and (ii) pay ₹1,25,00,000/- under the corporate guarantee. The respondent denied the allegations and disputed liability. In view of the disputes, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 12.09.2025 proposing SAMA as the arbitral institution. The respondent rejected the same but failed to suggest any alternative institution. Thereafter, the petitioner proposed WEBNYAY as an alternative vide notice dated 26.09.2025, however, the respondent neither consented nor proposed any alternative. Despite lapse of the stipulated period, no agreement could be reached on the appointment of an arbitral institution, resulting in failure of the mechanism for constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions has no objection for referring the matter to arbitration.
4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed by appointing Mr. Gurdeep Singh, District Judge (Retd.) (Mobile No.9910384746) as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties.
5. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule.
6. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act.
7. It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties and it will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law.
8. A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information.
