2026:BHC-AS:2363 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 50 OF 2025 M/s K R Traders Thr Its Partner Mr. Anand Nath …Petitioner Versus Digitally Union Of India signed by SHRADDHA S K H AM RA L D E D SH HA K TA A L M E L K E A S R H Represented By Chief Engineer TALEKAR Date:

2026.01.19

10:47:02 Pune Zone & 3 Ors …Respondents +0530 Mr. Shon Gadgil & Mr. Pradeep Mahajan, for Petitioner.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh i/b Aniket B. Pawar, for Union of India.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : January 14, 2026 ORDER :

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under the Contract Agreement dated March 3, 2020 (“Agreement”). The arbitration agreement is contained in Condition No. 70 of the General Conditions of Contract applicable to the work done (found at Page 36 of the Petition). In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. It is apparent from the record that the arbitration agreement was invoked by the Petitioner on September 8, 2025 and September 26, 2025.

3. The role of the Section 11 Court is restricted to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement. In this light, the objection taken by the Respondents deserves to be dealt with. The Respondents would point to the Condition No. 70, which contains the arbitration clause, to state that the parties would need to agree for a reference to be made to arbitration prior to completion of the work. It is the contention of the Respondents that only 90% of the work is done for which payment had been made, whereas it is a contention of the Petitioner, that the work has been completed and unlawful deductions have been made.

4. Be that as it may, the condition, essentially, refers to the reference of the dispute to arbitration not being permissible until “after the completion, or alleged completion” of the work. Since completion is being claimed by one party and is being denied by the other, this would be a case of alleged completion. That apart, this question of jurisdictional fact that lies in the heart of the objection cannot hold up reference of the dispute to arbitration. Needless to say, it shall be completely open to the Respondents to frame this objection as an issue under Section 16 of the Act, and it is up to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide upon the same. The parties have arrived consensus that the seat of arbitration shall be at Pune.

5. The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to the decisions of a seven-judge bench in the Interplay Judgement1 followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

6. Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899 – (2024) 6 SCC 1

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597 connection with the aforesaid Agreement to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

7. In these circumstances, an arbitral tribunal is appointed in the following terms :

A] Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, a learned advocate of this C