Delhi High Court – Orders
Devi Dayal Garg vs Gaurav Jindal & Ors on 27 February, 2026
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 1785/2025
DEVI DAYAL GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Himanshu Garg, Advocate.
versus
GAURAV JINDAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Punia, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 27.02.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short, ‘Act’] seeking appointment
of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the
following Loan Agreements: (i) Loan Agreement No. IN-
DL87090639075794S dated 30.09.2020 for an amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-
[hereinafter “Agreement 1”], (ii) Loan Agreement No. IN-
DL98361528983978S dated 26.10.2020 for an amount of Rs. 51,00,000/-
[hereinafter “Agreement 2”], (iii) Loan Agreement No. IN-
DL98324815280109S dated 26.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.95,00,000/-
[hereinafter “Agreement 3”] and, (iv) Loan Agreement No. IN-
DL31595197791871T dated 16.01.2021 for an amount of Rs.99,00,000/-
[hereinafter “Agreement 4”].
2. The said loan agreements provide for resolution of disputes by
arbitration. Clause 7 of the said loan agreements is an arbitration clause
which is para materia to one another and reads thus:
“7. Dispute settlement: It is agreed upon between the Parties
that any claim, dispute, differences arising between theThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2026 at 20:30:46
Parties, out of the present Loan Agreement, shall be referred
for adjudication to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the
First Party and the proceedings shall be done in terms of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended upto date.
The seat of the Arbitration shall be in New Delhi. The Award
of the Arbitrator shall be binding on both the parties.”
3. Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 28.10.2025
and reply thereto has been filed by the defendants on 09.12.2025.
4. Mr. Vivek Punia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that though the original agreements contained
arbitration clause, but the Agreement 2 and Agreement 3 which were
extended vide two separate Loan Extension Agreements, both dated
07.06.2022 do not have a separate arbitration clause. He therefore submits
that the said issue may be kept open.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Himanshu Garg, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the Agreement 2 and Agreement 3 were
extended vide two separate Loan Extension Agreements, both dated
07.06.2022, therefore, the said Extension Agreements only extends the
original agreements and all the terms and conditions of the original
agreements have to be read along with the said Loan Extension Agreements.
6. At this stage, the Court has to only see prima facie the existence of
arbitration clause from the material on record.
7. The Agreement 1 and Agreement 4 were extended vide two separate
Loan Extension Agreements, both dated 07.06.2022. The said Extension
Agreements specifically incorporate an arbitration clause identical to the
arbitration clause contained in the original agreements. The clause reads as
follows:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2026 at 20:30:46
“4. Dispute settlement: It is agreed upon between the Parties that
any claim, dispute, differences arising between the Parties, out of
the present Loan Agreement, shall be referred for adjudication to
a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the First Party and the
proceedings shall be done in terms of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended upto date. The seat of the
Arbitration shall be in New Delhi. The Award of the Arbitrator
shall be binding on both the parties.”
8. As noted above, the Agreement 2 and Agreement 3 were also
extended vide two separate Loan Extension Agreements, both dated
07.06.2022. While these extension agreements do not have separate
arbitration clause, but they include corresponding provision explicitly
reaffirming the terms of the original contracts. The relevant clause reads
thus:
“WHEREAS, all the clauses contained in the loan agreement
including compound interest at the same rate as 6% Per Month,
Due Monthly, Monthly Payable / or Monthly Compoundable as
mentioned in the loan agreement dated 26.10.2020 remains intact
and the Second Party has issued new PDCs (Post-Dated
Cheques’) for repayment of the principal loan and all due
interest.”
(emphasis supplied)
This clause prima facie establishes the parties’ intent that the
extension agreements are to be read conjunctively with original Agreement
2 and Agreement 3. Consequently, the arbitration clauses from the parent
agreements remain fully intact, operative, and legally binding.
9. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the original Loan
Agreements contain an arbitration clause and the Loan Extension
Agreements dated 07.06.2022 were only an extension of the original Loan
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2026 at 20:30:46
Agreements and hence, have to be read conjointly with the terms and
conditions mentioned in the original Loan Agreements.
10. The agreements were executed in Delhi and the arbitration clause also
mentions that the seat of arbitration shall be in New Delhi.
11. The dispute having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked
the arbitration by giving a notice dated 22.08.2025.
12. A perusal of the original Loan Agreements i.e. Agreement 1,
Agreement 2, Agreement 3 and Agreement 4 prima facie shows the
existence of arbitration clause in the said agreements, and the respondent is
also not averse to the matter being referred to arbitration. Therefore, the
petition is allowed.
13. Accordingly, the dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration
of Mr. Najmi Waziri, former Judge of this Court [Mobile no. 9810097311].
14. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under
Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.
15. Learned sole arbitrator shall be entitled to a fee in accordance with the
Fourth Schedule of the Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the
parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.
16. Petition stands disposed of.
17. It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties, including
but not limited to existence of arbitration clause, are left open for
adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2026/jg
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/03/2026 at 20:30:46