Delhi High Court
ARB.P./1337/2026 of TATA CAPITAL LIMITED Vs RIYA LALWANI & ANR. on 9 October 2026
1337/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010353062026 + ARB.P. 1337/2026 TATA CAPITAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Shivam Pandey, Advocates. versus RIYA LALWANI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM:
$~19
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010353062026
+
ARB.P. 1337/2026
TATA CAPITAL LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Nachiketa Suri, Mr. Raj
Kumar
and
Mr.
Shivam
Pandey, Advocates.
versus
RIYA LALWANI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
%
09.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
1. Vide order dated 15.09.2026 , this Court had granted the Respondents an opportunity to file their reply. However, the Respondents have neither entered appearance nor filed a reply.
2. The order dated 15.09.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “1. As per the affidavit of service, service has been refused by both the Respondents, who bear the same address and phone number as per the memo of parties.
2. In the interest of justice, adverse orders are deferred.
3. Accordingly, list on 09.10.2026.
4. By the next date of hearing. Respondents are directed to appear and file their reply, if any. The Petitioner is also directed to communicate this order to the Respondents.”
3. It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima
TRIPATHI
facie existence of an arbitration agreement1.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a valid arbitration clause between the parties.
5. Accordingly, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator.
6. Accordingly, Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate, (Mob. No. 9213857759) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from today.
7. The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within three weeks of entering reference.
8. The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
9. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including objection as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the learned Sole Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
1 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754
TRIPATHI
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present order.
11. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Mr. Sameer Sharma, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes including email.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J OCTOBER 9, 2026/pa
TRIPATHI