$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on:28.01.2026 + ARB.P. 1610/2025 PURI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarwar Raza, Mr. Arijit Sarkar and Ms.

Devanshi Yadav, Advs.

Mr. Himanshu Juneja A.R.

versus LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. Sumit Goel, Mr. Abhishek Thakral, Ms. Sreeparna Basak, Mr. Jayant Bajaj and Ms. Sugandh Shahi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, has been filed seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the unadjudicated issues/ quantification of claims of the Claimant/ Petitioner herein pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 21.04.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2575-2581 of 2016 in relation to common Arbitration Signature Not Verified Agreement as set out in the Development Agreement dated

10.03.1998, Agreement

2. The material on record indicates that the Petitioners, on behalf of and in the name of PCPL, purchased land in Sector 53 and 54, Gurgaon, Haryana, with the objective of developing a Group Housing Project. In the year 1995, ITC Ltd., through its wholly owned subsidiary, ITC Classic Real Estate Finance Ltd., ITCREF, intended to jointly develop the project with the Petitioners. However, ITCREF subsequently exited the real estate sector.

3. Pursuant to this, an Exit Agreement dated 30.07.1997 was entered into between the Petitioners and ITCREF, under which ITCREF was assured a specified built-up area in the project.

4. The project was thereafter assigned to Larsen & Toubro Ltd, L & T the Respondent herein. Accordingly, the Development Agreement dated 10.03.1998 was executed between the Petitioners and the Respondents, with ITCREF as the consenting party. The Development Agreement at Clause 45 contained the Arbitration Clause, which reads as follows:

“45. All disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved by mutual discussions between the parties failing which, such disputes shall be referred to Arbitration. The procedure of arbitration shall be as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. This agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at New Delhi only.”

5. Thereafter, it is stated in the Petition that certain disputes arose between the parties and the Petitioners herein, vide Legal Notice dated

18.09.2000, invoked arbitration.

Signature Not Verified

6. It is further stated that the Petitioners thereafter filed an Arbitration Petition bearing A.A. No. 241 of 2000, under Section 11(6) of the Act, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that had arisen between the parties.

7. Thereafter, vide Consent Order dated 14.02.2001, this Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. N. Ray (Retd.), former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The learned Arbitrator rendered the Arbitral Award on 28.12.2002, Arbitral Award

8. Material on record further indicates that aggrieved by the Arbitral Award, the Respondent filed objections under section 34 of the Act before this Court in OMP No. 26 of 2003, Section 34 Petition, which was consequently allowed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide Order dated 26.11.2008 and the Arbitral Award was set aside.

9. The aforesaid Order passed in the Section 34 Petition was challenged by both parties by way of cross Appeals under Section 37 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2015, partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein, thereby upholding the Arbitral Award, and setting aside only the damages component of the same.

10. The parties, thereafter, preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 2575-2581 of 2016 before the