$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1980/2025 ALFA COTEC INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chaitanya Mahajan and Mr.

Keshav Garg, Advs.

versus SYNCHRONIZED SUPPLY SYSTEMS LIMITED & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Yash Tandon and Mr. Sushil Shukla, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the Rent Agreement dated 27.10.2017, and Lease Deeds dated 01.12.2018, 09.12.2019, and 17.12.2021.

2. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein entered into the afore-mentioned Rent Agreement with the Respondents for a period of five years from 20.08.2017 to 19.08.2022, whereby the Petitioner herein provided an area of about 4160 sq. meters in the ground floor of property at SP-162, EPIP Phase-II, Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan – 301705, to the Respondents herein for managing logistics and warehousing.

3. It is stated that the Petitioner and the Respondents entered into three Lease Deeds dated 01.12.2018, 09.12.2019 and 17.12.2021 for leasing the property in question to the Respondents from 01.12.2018 till 31.08.2022. It is further stated that a fire broke out in the property in question while it was under possession of the Respondents, resulting in complete destruction of the property including loss of life. It is stated that the Respondents have failed to comply with their obligations and, therefore, disputes have arisen between the parties. It is stated that Clause 16 of the Rent Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause which provides that disputes arising between the parties under the Agreement shall be decided by means of Arbitration. It is stated that a Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was issued by the Petitioner on 31.07.2023. It is stated since the Respondent has failed to reply to the said notice, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the present Petition on the ground that the present Petition is hit by territorial jurisdiction in as much as Clause 16 of the Agreement provides that the Courts at Rajasthan shall have the jurisdiction over the Agreement and the disputes emanating therefrom.

5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reproduce Clause 16 of the Agreement and the same reads as under:

“Clause 16: ARBITRATION All disputes and differences between the parties hereto regarding the interpretation scope or effect of any of the terms and condition herein contained or in any way touching or concerning these presents shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator appointed jointly by TENANT and LANDLORD and the same shall be deemed to be a reference within the meaning of the arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 or any other statutory reenactment or modification thereto for the time being in force. The venue of such Arbitration shall be Delhi. The Courts of Rajasthan shall have jurisdiction over this Agreement as the immovable property is situated in Rajasthan. ”

6. Clause 16 of the Agreement specifically provides that the venue of Arbitration shall be Delhi. There is no other communication which shows that the parties have decided that the seat of the arbitration would be at any other place other than Delhi.

7. The Apex Court in Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 462, has laid down the law regarding appointment of an arbitrator wherein there is an inconsistency between ‘venue of arbitration’ and ‘jurisdiction of the Court’ in the underlying agreement. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:

“10. As per Section 2(2) of the Act, arbitrations which take place in India are governed by Part I of the Act. The “court” which will have jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of