Delhi High Court
ARB.P./46/2026 of TATA CAPITAL LIMITED Vs NAVEENMUSKAAN AUTO PVT LTD & ORS. on 12 October 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011081812025 + ARB.P. 46/2026 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ragini Kapoor, Advocate. versus NAVEENMUSKAAN AUTO PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Prince Arora, Ms. Chaitanya Sharma and Mr.
$~8
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC011081812025
+
ARB.P. 46/2026
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Ragini Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
NAVEENMUSKAAN AUTO PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Prince Arora, Ms. Chaitanya
Sharma and Mr. Himashu Sorout,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
12.10.2026
1. By way of the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner seeks the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with three Loan Agreements dated 22.07.2022, 16.08.2023 and 18.10.2024.
2. Respondent No. 1 – Naveen Muskaan Auto Pvt. Ltd., was the borrower under the aforesaid Loan Agreements, while respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were the guarantors. Each of these agreements contains an arbitration clause providing for the resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator, with Delhi designated as the place of arbitration and the courts at Delhi vested with jurisdiction.
3. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clauses vide legal notice dated 22.11.2025.
4. I have heard Ms. Ragini Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Prince Arora, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. During the pendency of the present petition, the parties were referred to mediation vide order dated 01.04.2026. However, the mediation was unsuccessful, as recorded in the report dated 22.09.2026 placed on record.
6. Mr. Arora submits that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
7. In view of the undisputed existence of the arbitration clauses and their invocation, the disputes arising out of the Loan Agreements dated 22.07.2022, 16.08.2023 and 18.10.2024 are referred to arbitration, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, on the following terms:
a) Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate [Tel.: 8574590040] is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the aforesaid Agreements.
b) The arbitration shall be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”] and in accordance with the DIAC Rules, including the provisions governing the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.
c) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish the requisite declaration under Section 12 of the Act before entering upon the reference.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputes. All rights and contentions of the parties, including those relating to the arbitrability and maintainability of the claims and the merits of the disputes, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.
9. The petition, alongwith any pending application, stands disposed of in the above terms. PRATEEK JALAN, J OCTOBER 12, 2026 SS/SD/