$~ J-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17^th November, 2025 Date of Decision: 28^th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 29^th January, 2026 + FAO(OS)(COMM)182/2022, CM APPL. 31553/2022 & CM APPL. 48614/2024 MR. AMRISH GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Gaurav Rana, Ms. Muskaan Mehra &

Ms. Pragya Dahiya, Advs.

versus LATE GURCHAIT SINGH CHEEMA GURCHAIT SINGH CHIMA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND WIDOW MRS. DALJEET KAUR CHIMA ..... .Respondent Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Vaani, Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Mr. Kanav Gupta, Mr. Rajat Pandey, Ms. Nivedita Tiwari, Ms. Shatakshi Singh, Mr. Shaswat Tiwari, Ms. Avantika Shankar and Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Advs.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘A&C Act,1996’), challenging the impugned judgment dated 18^th April 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM.) No. 68 of 2021, titled Amrish Gupta v. Gurchait Singh Chima (Deceased) through his Legal Representative and widow Mrs. Daljeet Kaur Chima (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”).

Factual Background

3. The present appeal arises out of arbitral proceedings concerning an Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred as ‘The Agreement’) dated 07^th August 2014, purportedly executed between the Appellant, Mr. Amrish Gupta, and the Respondent, Late Mr. Gurchait Singh Chima, who is now represented through his legal heir and widow, Smt. Daljeet Kaur Chima.

4. The dispute pertains to an immovable property bearing No. B-II/46, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi, comprising a plot of land measuring approximately 2390 sq. yards along with superstructures constructed thereon (hereinafter referred as “the subject property”).

5. According to the Respondent, the Agreement to Sell dated 07^th August 2014 was negotiated and executed through Mr. Surinder Kumar Wadhwa, who acted as the duly authorised General Power of Attorney holder and representative of the Respondent. Under the said Agreement, the total sale consideration for the subject property was fixed at ₹11 crores. Out of the said consideration, a sum of ₹3 crores was paid on 07^th August 2014, and the balance amount of ₹8 crores was payable upon the Appellant furnishing a Conveyance Deed in favour of the Respondent after conversion of the property into freehold. The Respondent asserts that the entire sale consideration stood paid in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

6. The Appellant, however, disputes the execution of the Agreement and has consistently asserted that his signatures appearing on the said document are forged and that the Agreement is fabricated. According to the Appellant, no transaction of sale was ever agreed upon between the parties.

7. After the execution of the Agreement, the Respondent addressed a letter dated 24^th January, 2017 calling upon the Appellant to complete the transaction and execute the Sale Deed in terms of the Agreement. In response thereto, the Appellant, by his reply dated 07^th February, 2017, denied having entered into any agreement for sale of the subject property and asserted that the Agreement relied upon by the Respondent was false and fabricated.

8. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for reference of disputes to arbitration. The relevant clause reads as under:

“That any dispute arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be referred to sole Arbitration of Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate, Flat No. 30, 8th Floor, Dakshineshwar, 10, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. The proceedings shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Concilia