In Radico Khaitan Limited v. Glare Glass Traders & Ors. (ARB.P. 1011/2026, decided 5 November 2026), Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the High Court of Delhi appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the strength of an arbitration clause contained in the terms printed on the petitioner’s tax invoices. The respondents never appeared: after ordinary service failed, the court permitted substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, and publication in two newspapers was held sufficient. The order is a compact illustration of three everyday mechanics of arbitration practice — invoice-based clauses at the prima facie stage, substituted service, and the court’s preference for an independent appointee over a party’s unilateral nominee.
The case in one view
| Case | Radico Khaitan Limited v. Glare Glass Traders & Ors., ARB.P. 1011/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Om Prakash Shukla J |
| Decided | 5 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Sections 11 and 12(2), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Order V Rule 20 CPC |
| Outcome | Sole arbitrator appointed; arbitration under DIAC; all pleas kept open |
The background
Radico Khaitan petitioned under Section 11 for the appointment of a sole arbitrator against Glare Glass Traders and connected respondents. The arbitration agreement pleaded was Clause 4 of the terms printed on the petitioner’s tax invoices: disputes arising out of the transaction or invoice to be arbitrated under the 1996 Act by a sole arbitrator appointed by the petitioner in its sole discretion, with Delhi as the seat, Indian law governing, exclusive jurisdiction in Delhi courts — and a term that the buyer is deemed to accept the arbitration agreement by accepting the goods.
Notice issued in July 2026 could not be served. The court permitted substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC; the affidavit of service showed publication in Hindustan Times and Navbharat Times in October 2026, which the court held sufficient. No respondent appeared and no reply was filed.
The prima facie gate
Proceeding ex parte after deemed service, the court confined itself to the settled Section 11 standard:
From the order: “the scope of enquiry of this Court is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.”
On that standard, the invoice clause sufficed, and the court appointed an arbitrator. Two features of the order deserve attention for what the court did not do. It did not adjudicate whether an arbitration clause resting on invoice terms — with a deemed-acceptance provision — finally binds a buyer who never signed anything; that, with impleadment, arbitrability and jurisdiction, was left to the arbitral tribunal, with the court directing that the arbitrator “shall adjudicate the disputes independently and on their own merits”. And it did not act on the clause’s unilateral-appointment mechanism: rather than the petitioner’s own nominee, the court appointed an independent advocate, Mr. Vishal Singhal, to act under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, entering upon the reference within three weeks and furnishing disclosures under Section 12(2).
What the order means in practice
The wider frame
A large share of trade in goods runs on invoices, not negotiated contracts, and sellers have responded by loading their invoice terms with dispute-resolution architecture. The Section 11 stage, deliberately narrowed to a prima facie look at the agreement’s existence, lets such clauses through to arbitration while reserving the real battle over consent for the tribunal. This order shows the machinery working exactly that way — along with the quiet but consistent judicial correction of unilateral-appointment clauses, and the routine use of substituted service to prevent evasion of process from stalling commercial dispute resolution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an arbitration clause printed on a tax invoice enforceable?
At the Section 11 stage, the court's enquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, and the invoice clause cleared that low threshold here. Importantly, the court did not rule on whether such a clause — including its deemed-acceptance-by-receipt term — finally binds the buyer; all substantive pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, were expressly left open before the arbitrator.
What is substituted service, and when is it allowed?
Where a respondent cannot be served in the ordinary way, Order V Rule 20 CPC permits service by alternative means — here, publication in Hindustan Times and Navbharat Times. On the affidavit of service showing publication, the court deemed the respondents served and proceeded in their absence.
The clause let the supplier appoint the arbitrator. Did that happen?
No. Although Clause 4 of the invoice terms provided for a sole arbitrator appointed by the petitioner in its sole discretion, the court appointed an independent advocate as arbitrator, with the arbitration to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and the arbitrator to furnish Section 12(2) disclosures. Unilateral appointment rights are not acted upon by the court.
Does non-appearance mean the respondent has lost the case?
No. The appointment order decides only that an arbitrator will be constituted. The respondents' defences — on the clause's validity, the claims, jurisdiction and impleadment — remain fully open in the arbitration, though continued absence there risks an ex parte award.