Delhi High Court
ARB.P./436/2026 of TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs WINSOFT EDUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010096852026 + ARB.P. 436/2026 & I.A. 6648/2026 TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Goswami, Advocate. versus WINSOFT EDUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
$~6
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010096852026
+
ARB.P. 436/2026 & I.A. 6648/2026
TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Sumit Goswami, Advocate.
versus
WINSOFT EDUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
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.
O R D E R
%
16.09.2026
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Arbitration Act”], seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties under the Loan Agreement dated 01.02.2020 [“the Agreement”].
2. Facts as stated in the Petition reveal that in November 2019, the Respondent No.1, as principal borrower, and Respondents No. 2 to 5, as co- borrowers, approached the Petitioner for financial assistance in the nature of a loan against a property. Resultantly, the Petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,04,73,416/- vide sanction letter and the Agreement was executed between the parties on 01.02.2020.
3. It is stated that the loan amount under the Agreement was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.4,32,457/- each, at a variable/floating rate of interest of 9.9% per annum.
4. It is stated that the Respondents committed defaults in repayment of the loan, leading to disputes between the parties.
5. Material on record indicates that Clause 12 of the Agreement contains an arbitration agreement, whereby disputes arising between the parties in connection with the Agreement are to be resolved through arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator. The said clause provides for arbitration at Chennai/Delhi/Mumbai/Kolkata, in accordance with the Arbitration Act. Further, Clause 13 of the Agreement stipulates that subject to Clause 12, all the disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts set out in Serial No. 13 of the Annexure 1 of the Agreement. Perusal of Serial No. 13 of Annexure 1 of the Agreement indicates that the parties have chosen out of which the Petitioner has opted for Delhi.
6. The Petitioner states that although the contractual clause contemplated appointment of the arbitrator by the Petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517, the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party is impermissible.
7. Accordingly, the Petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration dated 30.12.2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, calling upon the Respondents to either pay the outstanding amount of Rs.4,74,00,641/- or give consent for reference of the disputes to arbitration. It is stated that despite receipt of the notice, the Respondents neither paid the outstanding amount nor suggested any arbitrator.
8. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Petition.
9. Notice in the Petition was issued on 17.03.2026. The Office report indicates that the Respondents have been served, however, despite service there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents.
10. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
11. Accordingly, Ms. Priya Kumar, Sr. Advocate (Mob:9811355512) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
12. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
13. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration Act within two weeks of entering the reference.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
15. Needless to say, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression on the merits.
16. The present Petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Rahul