$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) 2/2026 & I.A. 588/2026 MR. YOGESH MADAN AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Faisal Naseem, Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Mr. Aditya Pandey and Ms. Mamta Kaushik, Advocates along with petitioner-Yogesh Madan in person.

Mob: 9999140032 versus MRS. ALAKA SUDHIR SHAH @ UMA SHEKHAR HARDAS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Sang Tani, Advocate Mob: 7073621688 Email: nishi.sangtani@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9(ii)(c) & (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for interim measures to restrain the respondent from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the property bearing no. G-143, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, till the pendency of the arbitral proceedings initiated in terms of Clause 13 of the Agreement to Sell, dated 04^th September, 2024, between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the tenants of the property bearing no. G-143, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, belonging to the respondent. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent is the owner of the propertyin question.

3. An Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties on 04^th September, 2024 in respect of the said property for a fixed consideration of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- out of which, part sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid to the respondent. The said Agreement was till 31^st March, 2025 initially, however, subsequently, the time period was extended till 31^st October, 2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the property was leasehold and the same was to be restored and also converted into freehold, the petitioners requested the respondent to submit the complete chain of documents. However, the said chain of documents was never provided bythe respondent.

5. It is submitted that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement to Sell dated 04^th September, 2024, the respondent terminated the Agreement to Sell through legal notice dated 03^rd November, 2025 and demanded the bank details of the petitioners to transfer the part sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

6. Subsequently, the respondent transferred Rs. 50,00,000/- directly in the bank account of the petitioners.

7. It is submitted that there is an arbitration clause, i.e., clause 13. Thus, the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause by sending a legal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act on 07^th January, 2026 to the respondent, requesting appointment of a sole arbitrator.

8. Since the respondent failed to respond to the same, the present petition has been filed seeking prayer to restrain the respondent from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party rights qua the property in question.

9. Issue notice. Notice is accepted bylearned counsel for the respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the property in question measures 200 sq. yds., and consists of ground floor and basement.

11. She submits that the respondent is a senior citizen and resides in Kenya. She submits that since the petitioners submitted to the respondent that they will help the respondent in restoring the lease of the property and also getting the same converted into freehold, the respondent entered into the said Agreement to Sell with the petitioners, at the amount, as mentioned therein.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that all the documents pertaining to the title were submitted to the petitioners at the time of signing the Agreement to Sell, on 04^th September, 2024.

13. After some arguments, parties are agreeable that the matter can be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause between the parties. They further submit that the matter be referred to Delhi International Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (“DIAC”).

14. This Court notes that Agreement to Sell dated 04^th September,