* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 15th September, 2025

Judgment pronounced on: 14th November, 2025

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 480/2019, I.A. 15906/2019 & I.A. 22472/2025

M/S ALPRO INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Mr. Animesh Mishra, Mr. Mohak Gulati and Mr. Maulik Khurana, Advocates.

versus

M/S AMBIENCE PVT. LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. P. K. Agrawal, Mr. Akshay Chitkara and Ms. Sanjoli Gupta, Advocates for R-1.

Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) challenging the Interim Award dated 6th September, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Interim Award’) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator, dismissing the prayer of the petitioner (the Claimant in the arbitration proceedings) for inclusion/impleadment of respondent no.2 i.e. Alankar Apartments Private Limited.

Factual Background

2. The petitioner, M/s Alpro Industries, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, is engaged in the promotion of aluminium doors, windows, façade works, under the brand name ‘Alpro’.

3. Respondent no. 1, Ambience Private Limited, is a company existing under the laws of India. Respondent no. 2, M/s. Alankar Apartments Private Limited, is also a company existing under the laws of India.

Contract between the parties

4. On 4th April, 2014, respondent no.1 issued a Letter of Intent to the petitioner for supply and installation of a glass façade system at the NH-8 Commercial Tower Project, Ambience Island, Gurgaon. The petitioner’s offer dated 7th April, 2014 was accepted through a Letter of Award dated 16th April, 2014, thereby concluding a contract between the parties. (’the Contract’).

5. The Contract provided for supply and installation of a façade system, at a total value of ?16,00,00,125/-. Subsequently, Amendment No.1 dated 27th June, 2014 was made to the contract, wherein the scope of work was expanded increasing the Contract value to ?16,33,83,530/-. By Amendment No.2 dated 24th July, 2014, the payment terms were modified. By Amendment dated 5th February, 2015, further additional work worth ?70,20,523/- was added, raising the Contract value to ?17,04,04,053/-.

6. The petitioner, by notice dated 14th August, 2018, invoked arbitration against both the respondents and sought appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, respondent no.1 appointed Justice M.S. Liberhan (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 23 of the Contract. Proceedings were initiated before the Arbitral Tribunal with the filing of the Statement of Claim on 1st March 2019. Respondent no.1, in its reply dated 9th April, 2019, raised a preliminary objection that respondent no.2, Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd., was not a party to the arbitration agreement and hence not a necessary or proper party. The issue before Arbitral Tribunal was whether respondent no.2 is to be impleaded as a party to the arbitration.

7. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the Contract dated 16th April 2014 was confined to the petitioner and respondent no.1, and no arbitration agreement existed between the petitioner and respondent no.2. The Arbitral Tribunal further observed that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the scope of the arbitration clause, and accordingly declined the petitioner’s prayer to implead respondent no.2.

8. Hence the present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the Impugned Interim Award.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

9. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, senior advocate for the petitioner, placing reliance on the judgments in TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects1(‘TRF Limited’), Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) Ltd2 (‘Perkins’