Summary: In a recent court decision on December 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Girish Kathpalia, supported an earlier decision about an argument over arbitration between Rita Kalita and Hero MotoCorp. The case is about whether the agreements for a dealership are real and if they include a rule for arbitration.
On December 10, 2025, the group handling the arbitration dismissed Rita Kalita's request under a specific section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. She claimed her connection with Hero MotoCorp was only based on a letter of intent from October 31, 2002, and not on the questioned dealership agreements dated March 13, 2018, and July 25, 2003. These agreements supposedly have the arbitration rule, but Kalita argued they weren't real.
"The group handling the arbitration has no authority," argued Kalita, stressing the lack of a real arbitration agreement in the letter of intent.
Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that whether the dealership agreements are real and signed should be decided in a full trial. The arbitration group decided not to stop the process early, letting Hero MotoCorp try to prove the agreements are real.
Kalita's lawyer agreed that the agreements' reality needed a full trial but thought the arbitration group should have kept her request open instead of dismissing it.
An earlier decision on December 6, 2024, by a Single Judge had already suggested that there was an agreement between the parties, and the reality of the arbitration rule should be settled by the Arbitrator.
The court emphasized, "The question of whether the arbitration agreement is real and valid has to be decided after a complete trial."
Justice Kathpalia instructed that the group handling the arbitration should collect detailed evidence from both sides before deciding on the Section 16 objection. This means the arbitration will not continue on the main issues until this preliminary question is settled.
The court clarified that the final decision regarding whether the arbitration rule is valid will only be made after looking at all the evidence.
Summary of the Verdict: The court decided that the question of whether the dealership agreements are valid and include an arbitration rule should be determined in a full trial, and the arbitration process will not proceed until this issue is resolved.
