Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited v. Mrs. Sanju Devi & ANR.

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ARB.P. 529/2026 TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sumit Goswami, Adv.

versus MRS. SANJU DEVI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 28.04.2026 1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, 'Act'] seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the loan agreement dated 21.02.2018. Clause 12.11 is the arbitration clause. 2.

The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause by giving a legal notice dated 30.12.2025, which did not elicit any response. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.

3.

Notice in the present petition was issued by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2026.

4.

Mr. Sumit Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the affidavit of service has been filed vide E-Diary No.188868/2026. The original copy of the said affidavit has been handed over across the Bar, the same is taken on record. 5.

A perusal of the affidavit of service reveals that the respondents have The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

been served through speed-post. Besides that, respondent no.2 has also been served through ordinary process with a dasti notice. The photograph showing respondent no.1 receiving dasti notice from the officer of petitioner/bank has been placed on record. Likewise, the notice which has been served upon respondent no.2 also bears his signatures. 6.

In view of the above, the respondents are taken to have been served. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents despite service. 7.

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court only requires to satisfy itself, prima facie, as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. All other questions are to be left to the determination of the learned Arbitrator.

8.

The material on record, particularly Clause 12.11 of the Loan Agreement dated 21.02.2018, prima facie, demonstrates that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The respondents have also not appeared to controvert this position.

9.

The petition is, therefore, allowed and the dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration of Mr. Abhishek Mohan Goel, Advocate, [Mobile 9172569818].

10.

The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi - 110003 ["DIAC"] and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

11.

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference. 12.

Further, since respondents are not represented before this Court, it is made clear that respondents be also served in accordance with the rules of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

DIAC in the arbitration proceedings.

13.

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

14.

The petition stands disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J APRIL 28, 2026 aj The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.