M/S Dharam Pal Chiman Lal v. M/S Shree Shakumbhari Glass And Glazers
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1989/2025 M/S DHARAM PAL CHIMAN LAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh & Ms.
Shagun Sabharwal, Advs.
versus M/S SHREE SHAKUMBHARI GLASS AND GLAZERS .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Ajit Kumar Gola, Adv. (through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
O R D E R
% 05.05.2026 1.
The present petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2.
The brief facts are that the petitioner was issued a work order dated 26.10.2022 by M/s Sri Sai Construction for construction of a service building. The contract was for Rs.15,10,35,473/-. The work was to be executed within twelve months from the date of issuance of the work order. The petitioner further issued a work order dated 05.12.2023 in favour of the respondent as sub-contractor for providing and fixing ACP, Aluminium, Glassworks at the service building, Thermal Power Station, Khurja. The sub-contract was for Rs.1,76,89,073/-. The terms and conditions agreed between the parties provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. The The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
relevant clauses of the work order are reproduced below: 2.1 Dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on 15.09.2025. Hence, the present petition. 3.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that clauses 16 and 17 of the work order are contradictory, one refers to civil court jurisdiction while the other provides for dispute resolution through arbitration and therefore the petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that M/s Sri Sai Construction has not been impleaded as party. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 16 of the work order provides for dispute resolution through arbitration and there being a dispute between the parties, an arbitrator be appointed by this court. 5.
Clause 16 of the work order provides for dispute resolution through The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
arbitration. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that clauses 16 and 17 of the work order are contradictory is ill-founded. Clause 17 of the work order is a jurisdiction clause and is not with regard to the mechanism provided for dispute resolution. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the contractor has not been impleaded as a party is of no avail.
6.
The Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 147 considering the decision in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (p) Ltd. & Anr., (2024) 4 SCC 1 held that it is for the arbitrator to decide the necessary parties to be impleaded under Section 16 of the Act and not by the court under Section 11 of the Act. The relevant portion is quoted below:
"76.7. Cox & Kings2 specifically dealt with the scope of inquiry under Section 11 when it comes to impleading the nonsignatories in the arbitration proceedings. While saying that the referral court would be required to prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement and whether the nonsignatory party is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement, it also said that in view of the complexity in such a determination, the Arbitral Tribunal would be the proper forum. It was further stated that the issue of determining parties to an arbitration agreement goes to the very root of the jurisdictional competence of the Arbitral Tribunal and can be decided under its jurisdiction under Section 16."
(emphasis supplied) 7.
In view of the above, the petition is allowed by appointing Ms. Manisha Suri, Advocate (Mobile No.9810075174) as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
8.
The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be governed by Schedule IV of the Act. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act.
9.
It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law. 10.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J MAY 5, 2026 'ha'
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.