* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 01^stDecember2025 Pronounced on: 18th December2025 Uploaded on : 18th December 2025 + FAO(COMM) 330/2025, CM APPL. 73920/2025, CM APPL.

73921/2025, CM. APPL. 73922/2025 & CM. APPL. 73923/2025.

M/S TRINET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SUDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AT 122/172, SILVER OAK APARTMENTS, DLF PHASE-I, GURUGRAM (HR.) .....Appellant Through: Ms. Babita Seth, Advocate versus M/S GARG AUTOMATIONS AND CONTROLS., C-2/1, THIRD FLOOR, CHURCH COMPOUND, SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI 1 10025 .....Respondent Through: Nemo + FAO (COMM) 331/2025, CM. APPL. 73924/2025, CM.APPL.

73925/2025, CM. APPL. 73926/2025, CM. APPL. 73927/2025 &

CM. APPL. 73928/2025.

TRINET SOLUTIONS PVT LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. SUDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AT 122/172, SILVER OAK APARTMENTS, DLF PHASE-I, GURUGRAM (HR.) .....Appellant Through: Ms. Babita Seth, Advocate versus GAC COMPUTERS (P) LTD., C-2/1, THIRD FLOOR, CHURCH COMPOUND, SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI- 110025 .....Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“A&C Act”] assailing the impugned judgment/order dated 13^thAugust 2025, passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the petitions under Section 34 of A&C Act, which challenged the arbitral awards dated 09^thApril 2019 passed in both these matters. The arbitral awards were passed by the Sole Arbitrator, wherein the Arbitral Tribunal [“AT”] allowed Claim nos. A, B and C of the respondents/claimants.

2. Though, these two appeals arise out of two independent arbitral awards, they concern two separate computer rental agreements executed by appellant with two sister concerns, who are the respective respondents in both these matters. The agreements are similarly worded and executed on the same date, 2^nd March 2007, and the disputes involve common questions of law, with minor differences in the factual matrix and the quantum of claims.

Factual Background

3. Respondent had agreed to supply computer systems on rent through agreements dated 14^th April 2007 in FAO (COMM) 330/2025) [hereinafter referred as “First Appeal”] and 01^st March 2007 in FAO COMM 331/2025 [hereinafter referred as “Second Appeal”]

4. Mr. Jogesh Pariwal, who was holding the position of Marketing Manager, was the authorized person who signed the agreement on behalf of respondents. Respondents who were the claimants in the arbitration, alleged that they had supplied computer systems on rent to the appellant and that sums of Rs. 9,87,873/- in First Appeal and Rs. 6,77,553.42/- in Second Appeal, was not paid by the appellant.

5. In Section 34 A & C Act proceedings, appellant, inter alia, took the plea that no amount was due, as respondents had not taken into account the debit notes dated 31^st March 2010 [Ex. RW1/2] and [Ex. RW1/3]. When this was brought to the notice of respondents, plea taken by respondents was that the debit notes were not received by Mr. Jogesh Pariwal, and were false and fabricated.

6. It was alleged by the respondents that the debit notes had been prepared subsequently by the appellant, with the help of Mr. Jogesh Pariwal, who had absented himself from company work since 24^th December 2014, without informing the respondents, and that there was an ongoing dispute between Mr. Jogesh Pariwal and respondents. In fact, a complaint against Mr. Jogesh Pariwal and other conspirators had been lodged by respondents at Police Station [P.S.] New Friends Colony.

7. Appellant alleged that the complaint specifically mentions that Mr. Jogesh Pariwal was in service till 2011 and was again appointed on 1^st January 2014, and thereafter absented himself since 24^th December 2014. In the complaint, respondents alleged that the debit note bore the signatures of Mr. Joges