In Ms. Urmila Dhanger v. M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ARB.P. 1284/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the High Court of Delhi allowed a Section 11 petition arising out of a memorandum of understanding of April 2018 and appointed a sole arbitrator. The order is a textbook illustration of the modern Section 11 hearing: the court confines itself to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, appoints, routes the arbitration through an institution, and consigns all other questions — arbitrability and jurisdiction included — to the tribunal.
The case in one view
| Case | Ms. Urmila Dhanger v. M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd., ARB.P. 1284/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Om Prakash Shukla J |
| Decided | 6 November 2026 |
| Provision | Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 |
| Outcome | Sole arbitrator appointed; arbitration under DIAC rules and fee schedule; all objections left open before the tribunal |
What the petition sought
The petitioner invoked Section 11 for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide disputes arising from a memorandum of understanding dated 17 April 2018 with a developer company. By the hearing, the battlefield had shrunk to nothing: the respondent’s counsel stated there was no objection to an appointment confined to disputes arising from the MoU, and the existence of a valid arbitration clause was not in dispute.
The court’s short path
Why so brief — and why that is the point
The brevity is doctrinal, not casual. Since the 2015 amendment introduced Section 11(6A) and the Supreme Court’s subsequent case law pared back judicial interference at the referral stage, the appointment hearing has become a gateway, not a battleground. Courts look for an arbitration agreement on the face of the record and leave everything else to the tribunal, whose competence to rule on its own jurisdiction is the architecture of the Act. For parties resisting arbitration, the practical consequence is that most defences are not lost but deferred — they must be raised before the arbitrator under Section 16, and a referral order like this one says nothing about their eventual fate.
Practice pointers for Section 11 petitions in Delhi
For claimants sitting on stale or disputed MoUs, the decision is an encouragement that the courtroom stage of starting an arbitration is now short. For respondents, it is a reminder that the real contest begins before the tribunal — and that consenting to a confined reference, as happened here, can itself be a sensible way of controlling scope.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a court examine in a Section 11 petition today?
Very little, by design. As this order records, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. If a clause exists between the parties and the dispute is said to arise under the contract containing it, appointment follows; deeper questions about validity, scope, limitation and arbitrability are for the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.
Can an MoU contain a binding arbitration clause?
Yes. The label of the document does not matter; what matters is whether it records an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. Here the arbitration clause in the 2018 MoU was not disputed, and the court found the parties ad idem on referring their disputes, which was enough for appointment.
What role does DIAC play after such an appointment?
The court directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees per the DIAC schedule. Institutional administration gives the parties a published fee structure, case-management support and timelines, while the arbitrator remains the court-appointed sole member of the tribunal.
Are the respondent's defences lost once an arbitrator is appointed?
No. The order expressly leaves it open to the parties to raise all pleas, including objections to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator. The appointment decides only that a tribunal will hear the matter — not any element of the merits or even the tribunal's ultimate jurisdiction.