$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:05^th February, 2026 + ARB.P. 1490/2025 DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma and Mr. Abhijeet Saxena, Advs.

M: 9810025083 versus PRAVEEN KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ankur Goel and Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, arising out of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement dated 23^rd June, 2016 (“Agreement”).

2. Learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that the talks of settlement between the parties have failed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners entered into the Agreement with the respondent to carry out the business of purchase and sale of land, flats and real estate promotions/engage in infrastructure development/exchange or acquire interest in any immovable property, under the name and style of „Shree Gee InfraTech LLP‟ (“LLP”).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the Agreement, the petitioners and respondent were partners in the LLP, wherein, equities were shared between the parties, with 50% shares in the name of respondent, i.e., Mr. Praveen Kumar, 25% in the name of petitioner no. 1, i.e., Mr. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, and 25% in the name of petitioner no. 2, i.e., Mrs. Pawan Aggarwal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the LLP undertook various infrastructure and development contracts, including, with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hans Raj College, and JMC Projects (India)

Ltd.

6. It is submitted that during the execution of the aforesaid work, some of the work, which was beyond the Agreement, was awarded to the respondent‟s firm, namely, „M/s. Shilpi Technocraft LLP‟, whereas, the payment was made from the LLP.

7. It is further submitted that upon completion of the work and settlement of accounts, a sum of Rs. 1,60,82,697/- became payable towards the share of profits to the petitioners. However, despite repeated demands, the said amount has not been paid by the respondent to the petitioners, thereby, giving rise to the disputes under the Agreement.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the Agreement, which contains the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 38.

9. He submits that the petitioners issued a legal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act dated 21^st July, 2025, which was dispatched on 22^nd July, 2025 and again dispatched on 01^st August, 2025. Thereafter, another notice dated 11^th August, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was also issued to the respondent.

10. By way of the said notices, the petitioners called upon the respondent to concur in the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising between the parties.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent, vide its reply dated 23^rd August, 2025 to the notice dated 11^th August, 2025, declined to accede to the petitioners‟ request for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the alleged demands/claims raised by the petitioners pertain to the works executed by another entity, i.e., „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟, belonging to the respondent and his family members, and not under the Agreement.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioners have no relationship or stake in „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟, and thus, the petitioners cannot demand any share from the income earned by the „M/s.

Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟, in any manner, whatsoever.

14. It is submitted that since „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟ is not a party to the Agreement, and therefore, the attempts of pet