$~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 13.02.2026 + ARB.P. 1411/2025 ARUNACHALAM CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Pawan, Mr. Suchit Singh Rawat, Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat, Mr. Aman Naqvi, Mr. Suyash Rawat and Mr.

Ryan Sinha, Advocates.

versus CONCEPT CAPITAL INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aanchal Bumb, Mr. Shailendra Slaria, Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Sujal Gupta, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Ms. Raymon Singh, Mr. Aditya Varun and Ms. Aastha Sarin, Advocates.

2 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 95/2024, I.A. 6679/2024 (U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2) & I.A. 6680/2024 (Delay of 5 days in Re-filing the petition)

MR. ARUNACHALAM CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS.

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Pawan, Mr. Suchit Singh Rawat, Ms. Shivangi Singh Rawat, Mr. Aman Naqvi, Mr. Suyash Rawat and Mr.

Ryan Sinha, Advocates.

versus CONCEPT CAPITAL INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD. & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aanchal Bumb, Mr. Shailendra Slaria, Mr. Imran Ali, Ms. Sujal Gupta, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Ms. Raymon Singh, Mr. Aditya Varun and Ms. Aastha Sarin, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

ARB.P. 1411/2025

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of various Buy-Back Agreements, Allotment Agreements, and Settlement Agreements. The Petition has been instituted by seventy-one Petitioners against Respondent No. 1, Concept Capital Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., and Respondent No. 2, Mr. Suninder Sandha.

2. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Petition in the form and manner in which it has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondents, Ms. Aanchal Bumb, who had commenced arguments and who is graciously assisted by learned Senior Counsel Ms. Malvika Trivedi, submits that the Petition is contrary to the scheme of the Act. It is contended that each of the Petitioners has entered into separate agreements with the Respondents, and the causes of action in respect of the disputes sought to be raised are distinct, independent, and unrelated to one another.

4. It is further contended that certain agreements executed between some of the Petitioners and the Respondents do not contain any arbitration clause.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that at least four of the Petitioners, who were signatories to two of the contracts, have already entered into a compromise/settlement with the Respondents.

6. Insofar as the aforesaid four Petitioners are concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petition is not being pressed on their behalf. However, he disputes the Respondents’ contention that the agreements executed with the remaining seventeen Petitioners do not contain arbitration clauses.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, with their assistance, has perused the paper book and the material placed on record.

8. At the outset, it is apposite to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 has categorically held that where parties have entered into multiple independent contracts, each containing a separate arbitration clause, a single arbitral tribunal cannot be constituted to adjudicate disputes arising out of all such contracts. The Apex Court, while considering the provisions of the Act, held that the Court’s jurisdiction at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator is confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement.

9. In that case, which concerned five separate contracts, each dealing with distinct subject matters and containing independent arbitration clau