Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
SDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
MR. PAWAN J PURI – Respondent
ARB.P. 1345/2025|ARB.P. 1346/2025|ARB.P. 1351/2025|ARB.P. 1352/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Ms. Muskan Katyayan, Mr. Karan Chhibber| For the Respondents: Mr. Mohan Kumar, Ms. Neetu Singh, Mr. Vishesh Tyagi, Mr. Arsh, Mr. Sanjay Sharma

The court affirmed the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, binding the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under various maintenance agreements with flat owners - Respondents contest existence of arbitration agreement - Court finds valid arbitration agreement exists based on maintenance agreement's arbitration clause, leading to the appointment of an arbitrator. (Paras 1, 17, 20)

(B) Validity of Arbitration Agreement - The court held that an arbitration agreement exists when the parties have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration, reinforcing the principle that the referral court's role is limited to a prima facie determination. (Paras 18, 19)

(C) Appointment of Arbitrator - The court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under the established arbitration framework, ensuring adherence to agreed procedures. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The SDC-1 Building Association filed multiple petitions under Section 11(6) for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes with various flat owners regarding non-payment of maintenance charges per individual maintenance agreements. The Respondents argued no valid arbitration agreement existed directly between them and the Petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that a valid arbitration agreement exists as the Petitioner is the assignee of the Maintenance Company, thus binding the Respondents to the arbitration clause contained in the maintenance agreements.

Issues: The central issue was whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents for the resolution of disputes regarding maintenance charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the existence of an arbitration agreement was established under the Arbitration Act, reinforcing that referral courts must respect the autonomy of arbitration agreements.

Result: The petitions were disposed of, and an arbitrator was appointed.

JUDGMENT

1. The present batch of Petitions has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the Arbitration Act‟) for appointment of the Arbitrator to adjudicate on the disputes which have arisen between the parties under various Maintenance Agreements.

2. The Petitioner herein, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1984 is concerned with the maintaining the common areas and services in Som Dutt Chamber-1, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi- 110066 (hereinafter referred to as „the Building‟). The Respondent in each of the Petition is the flat owner in the Building. For the sake of convenience, each of the flat owner in the Petitions tagged shall be collectively referred to as Respondents as the batch of Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondents entered into Maintenance Agreements with M/s Bhikaji Maintenance Combine (hereinafter referred to as „the BMC‟), whereby the Respondents agreed to pay the maintenance charges for the proper maintenance of Common Areas of the Building, including its security, running/maintenance of lifts, power back up, housekeeping as well as for the operation of common services etc.

4. The Respondent in ARB.P.1345/2025 signed the Maintenance Agreement on 22.05.1986, Respondent in ARB.P.1346/2025 signed the Maintenance Agreement on 31.08.1990, Respondent in ARB.P.1351/2025 signed the Maintenance Agreement on 01.06.1987 and Respondent in ARB.P.1352/2025 signed the Maintenance Agreement on 26.04.1997.

5. Clause 11 of the said Agreements contains an Arbitration Clause.

6. It is stated that the Petitioner/Society was involved in coordinating with the builder being SDB Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred as „the Builder‟) and the flat owner/allotees, i.e., the Respondents herein for the smooth functioning and maintenance of the common areas and services of the Building.

7. It is stated that the Builder filed a Writ Petition being W.P(C) 684/2002 before this Court challenging an Order passed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred as „the DDA‟) directing the Builder to hand-over the possession of Plot No.5, District Centre, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, with the superstructure standing thereon to the DDA. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated

29.09.2016 with the following directions:

“22. I therefore dispose of this petition with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner to within two months hereof deposit with the respondent DDA all amounts by way of ground rent or otherwise collected by it from the owners/occupiers of flats/spaces in the aforesaid building and the respondent DDA to accept the same.

(ii) The petitioner to at the time of making the aforesaid deposit also file an affidavit with the respondent DDA to the effect that it is not holding any amount whether by way of ground rent or otherwise collected from the owners/occupiers of flats/spaces in the aforesaid building and the petitioner is restrained from hereafter collecting any amount towards ground rent or otherwise from the owners/occupiers of flats/spaces in the aforesaid building.

(iii) The respondent DDA to within two months hereof carry out a detailed survey of the building aforesaid and to have prepared detailed drawings of the building including of each floor of the building, identifying by measurement the flats/spaces therein and the name and other particulars of the persons who are claiming to own the same.

(iv) The petitioner to within two months aforesaid file another affidavit with the respondent DDA giving the names and particulars of the persons who as per the record of the petitioner are the purchasers/owners of different flats/spaces in the aforesaid multi-storied building.

(v) The respondent DDA to thereafter, in accordance with the prevalent Rules & Regulations, Bye-laws ass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISubramonium Prasad, JSDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION – AppellantVersusMR. PAWAN J PURI – RespondentARB.P. 1345/2025|ARB.P. 1346/2025|ARB.P. 1351/2025|ARB.P. 1352/2025

The court affirmed the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, binding the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
SDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
MR. PAWAN J PURI – Respondent
ARB.P. 1345/2025|ARB.P. 1346/2025|ARB.P. 1351/2025|ARB.P. 1352/2025