Lease Plan India vs P. D. Memorial Religious Association - Arbitration Appointment

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 11, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited vs P. D. Memorial Religious And ... on 25 March, 2026

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.03.2026

                      +         ARB.P. 1818/2025
                                M/S LEASE PLAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Akhilesh Pradhan,
                                                        Advocate

                                                      versus

                                P. D. MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL
                                ASSOCIATION                    .....Respondent
                                            Through: None

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
                                SHANKAR

                      %                               JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
                      1.        The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
                      Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, seeking the appointment of
                      an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out
                      of the Lease Agreement dated 06.06.20182.
                      2.        The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being [Article 10.2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/202193/), which reads as under:
                                "10.2(i) Arbitration: All disputes, differences, claims and demands
                                arising under or pursuant to or concerning this Agreement shall be
                                referred to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the [Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306164/) or any statutory amendment
                                or re amendment or re-enactment thereof subject to following
                                rules:
                                (a) Arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be

                      1
                          Act
                      2
                          Agreement

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 1 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
appointed by LPIN.
(b)The language of arbitration shall be English and place of
Arbitration shall be Delhi,
(c) The respective costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the
parties in the first instance; however, the successful party shall be
entitled to the costs of arbitration including legal and recovery
costs.
(d) The award shall be a speaking award and shall be binding on
the parties.

                             (ii) Jurisdiction:
                             Subject to 10.1 (i), the laws of India shall govern this Agreement.
                             The Courts in New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in
                             respect of any matter, claim or dispute arising out of or in any way,
                             relating to this Agreement."

                      3.     The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein
                      invoked arbitration in terms of [Section 21](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138599/) of the Act vide legal notice
                      dated 23.08.2025.
                      4.     On the last date of hearing, i.e., 14.01.2026, this Court noted
                      that service upon the Respondent had been duly effected; however,
                      since the Respondent was not represented, adverse orders were
                      deferred in the interest of justice. Even today, none appears on behalf
                      of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent is proceeded against
                      ex parte.
                      5.     At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the legal position
                      governing the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under [Section
                      11(6)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/605764/) of the Act is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of the
                      Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish
                      Spinning3,         after   taking   into   consideration     the    authoritative
                      pronouncement of the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between
                      Arbitration Agreements under [Arbitration Act, 1996](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306164/) & Stamp

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 2 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
Act, 1899, In re4, comprehensively delineated the contours of judicial
intervention at the stage of Section 11 of the Act. The excerpt of Krish
Spg (supra) reads as under:-
"(c) Judicial interference under the 1996 Act
110. The parties have been conferred with the power to decide and
agree on the procedure to be adopted for appointing arbitrators. In
cases where the agreed upon procedure fails, the courts have been
vested with the power to appoint arbitrators upon the request of a
party, to resolve the deadlock between the parties in appointing the
arbitrators.
111. Section 11 of the 1996 Act is provided to give effect to the
mutual intention of the parties to settle their disputes by arbitration
in situations where the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator(s). The
parameters of judicial review laid down for Section 8 differ from
those prescribed for Section 11. The view taken in SBP &
Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 and affirmed in Vidya
Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 that Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act are complementary in nature
was legislatively overruled by the introduction of Section 11 (6-A)
in 2015. Thus, although both these provisions intend to compel
parties to abide by their mutual intention to arbitrate, yet the scope
of powers conferred upon the courts under both the sections are
different.
112. The difference between Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the
1996 Act is also evident from the scope of these provisions. Some
of these differences are:
112.1. While Section 8 empowers any "judicial authority" to refer
the parties to arbitration, under Section 11, the power to refer has
been exclusively conferred upon the High Court and the Supreme
Court.
112.2. Under Section 37, an appeal lies against the refusal of the
judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration, whereas no such
provision for appeal exists for a refusal under Section 11.
112.3. The standard of scrutiny provided under Section 8 is that of
prima facie examination of the validity and existence of an
arbitration agreement. Whereas, the standard of scrutiny under Section 11 is confined to the examination of the existence of the
arbitration agreement.
112.4. During the pendency of an application under Section 8,
arbitration may commence or continue and an award can be passed.

                      3
                          (2024) 12 SCC 1
                      4
                          (2024) 6 SCC 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 3 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
On the other hand, under Section 11, once there is failure on the
part of the parties in appointing the arbitrator as per the agreed
procedure and an application is preferred, no arbitration
proceedings can commence or continue.
113. The scope of examination under Section 11 (6-A) is confined
to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section
7. The examination of validity of the arbitration agreement is also
limited to the requirement of formal validity such as the
requirement that the agreement should be in writing.
114. The use of the term "examination" under Section 11 (6-A) as
distinguished from the use of the term "rule" under Section 16 implies that the scope of enquiry under Section 11 (6-A) is limited
to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence of the arbitration
agreement, and does not include a contested or laborious enquiry,
which is left for the Arbitral Tribunal to "rule" under Section 16.
The prima facie view on existence of the arbitration agreement
taken by the Referral Court does not bind either the Arbitral
Tribunal or the Court enforcing the arbitral award.
115. The aforesaid approach serves a twofold purpose -- firstly, it
allows the Referral Court to weed out non-existent arbitration
agreements, and secondly, it protects the jurisdictional competence
of the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the issue of existence of the
arbitration agreement in depth.
****
117. In view of the observations made by this Court in Interplay
Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, it is clear that the
scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited
to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration
agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to
hold that the observations made inVidya Drolia v. Durga Trading
Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 and adopted inNTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra
Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 385 that the jurisdiction of the Referral Court
when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex facie non-arbitrable and
frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent
decision inInterplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC
1.
****
119. The question of "accord and satisfaction", being a mixed
question of law and fact, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Arbitral Tribunal, if not otherwise agreed upon between the
parties. Thus, the negative effect of competence-competence would
require that the matter falling within the exclusive domain of the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 4 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
Arbitral Tribunal, should not be looked into by the Referral Court,
even for a prima facie determination, before the Arbitral Tribunal
first has had the opportunity of looking into it.
120. By referring disputes to arbitration and appointing an
arbitrator by exercise of the powers under Section 11, the Referral
Court upholds and gives effect to the original understanding of the
contracting parties that the specified disputes shall be resolved by
arbitration. Mere appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal does not in
any way mean that the Referral Court is diluting the sanctity of
"accord and satisfaction" or is allowing the claimant to walk back
on its contractual undertaking. On the contrary, it ensures that the
principle of arbitral autonomy is upheld and the legislative intent of
minimum judicial interference in arbitral proceedings is given full
effect. Once the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, it is always open
for the defendant to raise the issue of "accord and satisfaction"
before it, and only after such an objection is rejected by the
Arbitral Tribunal, that the claims raised by the claimant can be
adjudicated.
121. Tests like the "eye of the needle" and "ex facie meritless",
although try to minimise the extent of judicial interference, yet they
require the Referral Court to examine contested facts and
appreciate prima facie evidence (however limited the scope of
enquiry may be) and thus are not in conformity with the
principles of modern arbitration which place arbitral autonomy and
judicial non-interference on the highest pedestal.
122. Appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal at the stage of Section 11 petition also does not mean that the Referral Courts forego any
scope of judicial review of the adjudication done by the Arbitral
Tribunal. The 1996 Act clearly vests the national courts with the
power of subsequent review by which the award passed by an
arbitrator may be subjected to challenge by any of the parties to the
arbitration.
*****
126. The power available to the Referral Courts has to be construed
in the light of the fact that no right to appeal is available against
any order passed by the Referral Court under Section 11 for either
appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator. Thus, by delving
into the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal at the nascent stage of Section 11, the Referral Courts also run the risk of leaving the
claimant in a situation wherein it does not have any forum to
approach for the adjudication of its claims, if its Section 11 application is rejected.
127. Section 11 also envisages a time-bound and expeditious
disposal of the application for appointment of arbitrator. One of the
reasons for this is also the fact that unlike Section 8, once an

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 5 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
application under Section 11 is filed, arbitration cannot commence
until the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted by the Referral Court. This
Court, on various occasions, has given directions to the High
Courts for expeditious disposal of pending Section 11 applications.
It has also directed the litigating parties to refrain from filing bulky
pleadings in matters pertaining to Section 11. Seen thus, if the
Referral Courts go into the details of issues pertaining to "accord
and satisfaction" and the like, then it would become rather difficult
to achieve the objective of expediency and simplification of
pleadings.
128. We are also of the view that ex facie frivolity and dishonesty
in litigation is an aspect which the Arbitral Tribunal is equally, if
not more, capable to decide upon the appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the parties. We say so because the Arbitral Tribunal
has the benefit of going through all the relevant evidence and
pleadings in much more detail than the Referral Court. If the
Referral Court is able to see the frivolity in the litigation on the
basis of bare minimum pleadings, then it would be incorrect to
doubt that the Arbitral Tribunal would not be able to arrive at the
same inference, most likely in the first few hearings itself, with the
benefit of extensive pleadings and evidentiary material."
(emphasis supplied)

                      6.     The decision in Krish Spinning (supra) thus unequivocally
                      reiterates that the Referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under [Section 11](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1841764/) of the Act, is required to confine itself to a prima facie
                      examination of the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement and
                      nothing      beyond.      The      Court's       role     is    facilitative         and
                      procedural, namely, to give effect to the parties' agreed mechanism of
                      dispute resolution when it has failed, without embarking upon an
                      adjudication of contentious factual or legal issues, which are reserved
                      for the Arbitral Tribunal.
                      7.     Material on record indicates that the valuation of the present
                      dispute is stated to be approximately Rs. 17,00,000/-.
                      8.     Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
                      matter may be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator under the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 1818/2025 Page 6 of 7
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:27.03.2026
16:26:30
aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre ["DIAC"].
9. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul,
Advocate, (E-mail id kamaldigpaul@gmail.com ), to adjudicate the
disputes as between the parties.
10. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the 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.
11. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite
disclosure under Section 12 (2) of the Act within a week of entering of
reference.
12. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the
learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e-
mail.
13. 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.
14. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy
between the parties.
15. Accordingly, the present petition, along with all pending
application(s), if any, is disposed of.

                                         HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. MARCH, 25, 2026/ rk/va/jk