$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 198/2026 NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.M. Kalia, Advocate.

versus M/S EDDY CURRENT CONTROLS (INDIA) LTD .....Respondent Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

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 under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”] for the purpose of adjudication of disputes inter se the parties in accordance with Clause 15 of the Agreement dated 28.02.2008 as entered between the parties. The relevant clause of the Agreement is reproduced herein under for ready reference:

“15. ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION a) If any dispute or difference arises between the parties hereto as to the construction, interpretation, effect and implication of any provision of this Agreement including the rights or liabilities or any claim or demand of any Party (or its extent) against other party or its sub- contractor or in regard to any matter under these presents but excluding any matters, decisions or determination of which is expressly provided for in this Agreement such disputes or differences shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary of Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India or his nominee. A reference to the arbitration under this clause shall be deemed to be submission within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any modification or re- enactment thereof and the rules framed thereunder for the time being in force.

b) (i) The venue of the Arbitration shall be at Delhi.

(ii) Each Party shall bear and pay its own cost of the arbitration proceedings unless the arbitrator otherwise decides in the award.

(iii) The provision of this clause shall not be frustrated, abrogated or become in-operative, notwithstanding this Agreement expires or ceases to exist or is terminated or revoked or declared unlawful.

c) The Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters concerning this Agreement, including any matter related to or arising out of the arbitration proceedings or any award made therein.”

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that present petition has been preferred on account of the fact that the previous Arbitral Award dated 02.01.2019 came to be set aside vide Judgement dated 19.07.2023 in OMP (COMM) 49/2019by the learned Commercial Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on the ground of unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator.

3. The material on record also indicates that pursuant to the disputes that arose between the parties, the Notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued by the Petitioner on 13.11.2025.

4. On perusal of the material on record, this Court further observes that the Respondent vide their Reply to the Notice, refused to give their consent for invoking the arbitration clause as well as denied the existence of any disputes between the parties.

5. Issue notice.

6. Upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner taking necessary steps within a period of three (3) weeks from today, notice be issued to the Respondent through all permissible modes, returnable on

18.03.2026.

7. Reply, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

JANUARY 29, 2026/tk/her/dj