$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 27.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 27.01.2026 + FAO(COMM.) 123/2023 ARUN MEHROTRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Tushar Mahajan, Mr.

Bhaavan Mahajan and Mr.

Tanmay S. Surana, Advs.

versus KISHAN LAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Khurana, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, the Appellant (Petitioner before the learned District Judge) assails the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟], whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34, Section 34 of the A&C Act, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without looking into the merits of the matter of the Award dated 02.11.2018 [hereinafter referred to as „the Award‟] passed by the learned Arbitrator.

2. Herein, the Appellant contends that the learned District Judge, after completion of the pleadings and after discussing the merits of the contentions raised by the Appellant, dismissed the Section 34 petition on the sole ground of jurisdiction. The learned District Judge held that the arbitration proceedings were conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre [hereinafter referred to as „DIAC‟] at DIAC, New Delhi, and 5, Siri Fort, New Delhi, and thus this place of arbitration does not fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Dwarka, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Dwarka Courts‟]

3. Accordingly, the issue that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the proceedings under Section 34 challenging the Award were maintainable before the Dwarka Courts or not.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. The Appellant entered into a Civil Construction Contract dated 26.04.2012 [hereinafter referred to as „the subject Contract‟] with the Respondent for the construction of the property bearing no. B- 1/231, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058 [hereinafter referred to as the „suit premises‟].

6. It is noted that the construction at the site was already underway, and the Respondent was engaged during the ongoing work. After the engagement of the Respondent, a formal written Agreement, enumerating the terms on which the property was to be constructed, was executed by the parties. It is the case of the Appellant that since the beginning, the services of the Respondent were not satisfactory, and they had engaged one Sh. Ramesh Chand, as a mason, handed over the work to him, and thereafter, the Respondent very occasionally visited the site under construction.

7. It is the further case of the Appellant that, under the subject Contract, the Respondent was required to execute the construction along with procurement of materials, the contract price being inclusive thereof and without any separate labour rates; however, from the inception, the Respondent failed to procure materials and undertook only labour work, while also executing the construction in a deficient manner and contrary to the terms of the agreement. Despite being informed of the deficiencies and deterioration in quality by email dated 19.02.2013, the Respondent neither rectified the defects nor visited the site thereafter and ultimately abandoned the work midway, compelling the Appellant to engage labourers on daily wages and retain certain existing labourers to complete the construction under its own supervision within a couple of months, though some works left incomplete by the Respondent continue to remain pending.

8. It is further stated that, on 17.11.2015, the Appellant received a notice from the Respondent raising an illegal demand of Rs.24,03,653/-. The Appellant thereafter contacted the Respondent and clari