$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19520/2025 & CM. APPL. 2527/2026 DJT RETAILERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. and Mr.

Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Kisku, Mr. Anshul Sehgal, Mr. Pranshu Paul, Mr. Srajan Dixit, Mr. Divyanshu Jain and Mr. Shivam Jha, Advs.

versus PACIFIC RETAIL CENTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Mr.

Archit Chauhan and Mr. Adil Vadudeva, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 15.01.2026

1. The petition is against the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the sole arbitrator, whereby, the petitioner’s application bearing No.03/2025, seeking to take on record the Statement of Defence, was rejected.

2. The Court has considered various submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, including that the petitioner has ‘sufficient cause’ as required under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for taking on record the Statement of Defence, and accordingly, it is argued that the view taken by the sole arbitrator is wholly perverse and highly detrimental to the interest of the petitioner.

3. Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has taken the Court through the order of this Court dated 05.08.2025 in O.M.P. (COMM) 311/2025 and asserts that in the interest of justice, the petitioner’s application ought to have been allowed as the same would not cause any prejudice to the respondents.

4. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The sole-arbitrator, in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 of the impugned order, has considered the prayer made in the aforesaid application:

“17. Reverting to facts of the present case, with the consent of the parties, a joint schedule for filing of pleadings was agreed between the parties. The Respondent agreed to file SOD on or before 12.04.2025, which was a gap of six weeks. The Respondent did not file the SOD instead pressed their application under Section 16 of the Act which was dismissed on 14.05.2025. The Respondent was given another opportunity to file SOD till 31.05.2025 which they failed to utilize. Thus, in terms of Section 25(b) of the Act and Rule 17.2 of the DIAC Rules, 2023, this Tribunal proceeded to close the Respondent's right to file its SOD vide its procedural orders dated 14.05.2025 and reiterated the same vide order dated 06.06.2025.

18. The Respondent has contented they have sufficient cause for not filing SOD in the prescribed time since they received advice from their erstwhile counsel's that SOD should not be filed till the disposal of application of section 16 of the Act. This Tribunal is of the opinion that this plea is not available to the Respondent as another opportunity was granted to the Respondent to file SOD after the application under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed however, they elected not to file the same.

19. It is noteworthy that no efforts were made by the Respondent to file SOD even after a new lawyer was appointed. The new lawyer appeared on 07.07.2025 and the SOD was filed on 08.08.2025, thus there was a further delay of about a month even after engagement of a new lawyer. Besides the application is conspicuously silent about the reason for failure to file SOD after new lawyer took over the case hence mistake of the erstwhile lawyer cannot constitute sufficient cause in determining this Application. As noted above the SOD with the present Application was filed 86 days after the dismissal of application under Section 16 of the Act and no sufficient cause have been shown for not filing in time, hence, the present application is devoid of merit.”

6. Undoubtedly, the Court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can examine the legality of the order passed by the sole-arbitrator. This position has been reiterated by the