$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 127/2025 M/S PRESIDENCY INFRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD. ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Ms.

Khushi Jain and Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Advocates.

versus M/S GOLDHOMZ CONSULTING THROUGH ITS PARTNERS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vishal Khanna and Mr.

Abhishek Gupta, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

1. The present Petition, under Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeks the appointment/substitution of the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Agreement dated

28.09.2018 [“Agreement”].

2. The Agreement contains the arbitration clause being Clause 23, which reads as under:

“23. In the event of any dispute or difference between the Parties, with regard to interpretation of the terms of this Agreement, or performance of the respective obligations or any other issue arising between the parties out of this Agreement, the Parties shall try to resolve the same amicably by mutual discussions/negotiations. In case, the parties are unable to resolve the disputes amicably within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the notification of the dispute by one party to the other, the same may be settled by the Arbitration to be held at Delhi and New Delhi, in accordance with the provisions of ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof. This Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Delhi, New Delhi and the proceedings shall be held in English Language only.”

3. It is stated in the present Petition that disputes arose between the parties pertaining to the Agreement, pursuant to which the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained therein by way of a legal notice dated 08.09.2020.

4. Owing to the failure of the Respondents to respond to the notice invoking arbitration, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.

5. Vide order dated 08.10.2021, this Court appointed Mr. Anand Singh Yadav (Retd. District & Sessions Judge) as the Sole Arbitrator. The Order appointing the learned Sole Arbitrator was assailed by the Respondents before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition bearing No. 20055/2021, which, after granting an interim stay on the arbitral proceedings, was ultimately dismissed on 16.09.2025. By way of the Order dated 16.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Petitioner to approach the learned Sole Arbitrator in terms of the Order dated 08.10.2021.

6. Pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP and as per the directions of the Apex Court, the Petitioner approached the learned Sole Arbitrator for continuation of the arbitral proceedings. However, the learned Sole Arbitrator expressed his inability to proceed with the matter due to personal health reasons, rendering him unable to perform his mandate. 7. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the appointment of a new learned Sole Arbitrator to substitute the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed earlier by this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondents enters appearance and states, on instructions, that he has no objection to the present Petition in view of the fact that the learned Arbitrator has recused himself.

9. Material on record further indicates that the disputed amount is stated to be Rs. 1,09,53,894/-.

10. Accordingly, Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate [email:anupam@asrivastava.in & Mob. No. 9811032151], who is empanelled with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”], is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

11. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

12. The learned Arbitrator is also