$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28.01.2026 + ARB.P. 1885/2025 M/S POURING POUNDS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghav Wadhwa, Mr.

Amitoj Chadha and Ms. Jahnvi Ghai, Advocates.

versus SHOOGLOO NETWORK PVT LTD (FORMERLY OMG NETWORK PVT LTD) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Suhail Malik and Mr. Aqib Zaman, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, The Act, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in terms of Clause 13 of the Marketing Agreement dated 14.12.2021, Agreement

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 13, which reads as under:

“13. ARBITRATION:

13.1 The Parties shall endeavour to amicably settle and mutually resolve any dispute arising out of or in relation to this Agreement.

13.2 In the event Parties are unable to resolve the dispute or difference amicably within 30 (Thirty) days of receipt of written notice from the other Party about existence of such dispute, either Signature Not Verified Party may refer such dispute or difference to arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of a sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the Parties. In case the Parties fail to appoint an arbitrator, within 30 (Thirty) days from the submission of dispute for settlement through arbitration, the arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The seat and venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi and the arbitration shall be conducted in the English language.

13.3 The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules made thereunder. The Parties agree that they shall bear their respective costs incurred towards the arbitration.

13.4 The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, binding and non appealable except in the event of manifest error, In those instances where the dispute or difference referred to arbitration relates to or involves any matter or thing in respect of which the decision, opinion or determination is final and binding on Parties in terms of the Agreement, such decision, opinion and/or determination as the case may be, shall be final, binding, and not subject to further appeal.

13.5 Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, both Parties acknowledge and agree that the covenants and obligations with respect to the matters covered by this Agreement and set forth herein relate to special, unique and extraordinary matters, and that a violation of any of the terms of such covenants and obligations will cause irreparable loss and injury to the aggrieved Party, Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement, either Party shall be entitled to approach any appropriate forums for obtaining an injunction, restraining order or such other equitable relief as a court of competent jurisdiction may deem necessary or appropriate.

13.6 - This clause 13 shall survive termination of the Agreement.”

3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 19.07.2025.

4. This Court is cognizant of the scope of examination and interference at the stage of a Petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act has been fairly well settled. A Coordinate bench of this Court, in Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v.

Signature Not Verified Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022, has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. The Court, in the said judgment, held as under:-

9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General I