$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16.02.2026 + ARB.P. 309/2026 M/S SAPPHIRE INFRACARE LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Utsav Jain and Mr. Manish Bhojwani, Advocates.

versus THIRANI BUILDCON PVT LTD .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“Act”], seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

2. The relevant clause is stated to be Clause 23 of the Work Order dated 01.07.2021[“Agreement”] and the same is as follows:

“23. Governing Law, Jurisdiction & Arbitration: The Parties hereto agree that the courts and tribunals in Gautam Budh Nagar shall have the exclusive jurisdiction and shall be governed in accordance with the laws of India

23.1. Arbitration:- In the event of any claim, dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the interpretation or implementation of the agreement or out of or in connection with any breach, or alleged breach of the agreement (hereinafter referred Signature Not Verified to as "the dispute") between the parties, the parties hereby agreed to refer sole arbitrator appointed by the SIL . The Owner shall be only entitled to select the sole Arbitrator. The proceedings shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 with any statutory modification thereto or reenactment thereof. The venue for holding such arbitration proceedings would be Gautam Budh Nagar /Delhi.

23.2. The customer do hereby unequivocally agrees to these terms without any reservation voluntarily and it has been agreed that the proceeding shall be conducted in English, the cost of the arbitration proceeding shall be borne by the parties equally unless the Arbitrator appointed in the matter passes any Award otherwise. It has further been agreed between the parties that in the event the Sole Arbitrator so selected is unable to accept appointment within a fortnight from the date of notice the owner shall have the right to select other Sole Arbitrator from the said panel so as to continue with the Arbitration proceeding and that the Award passed by the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and the parties agree to be bound thereby and to act accordingly

23.3. It is further agreed between the parties, that for the purpose of availing of CIAA panel of Arbitrators and/or Rules framed there- under, make payments of necessary fees which are to be borne by the parties jointly and for such purpose to take all such steps whatsoever is required, the customer does hereby authorize the Owner to take all necessary steps on its behalf which the customer shall be deemed to have ratified The aforesaid provisions shall survive the termination / expiry of the Agreement.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. A perusal of the above stated arbitration clause makes it evident that exclusive jurisdiction with respect to dispute resolution is conferred with the Courts in Gautam Budh Nagar, while Clause 23.1 of the said clause further reveals that the venue of the arbitration proceedings would be at Gautam Budh Nagar or Delhi.

4. Therefore, it is evident that the parties have unequivocally agreed upon Gautam Budh Nagar or Delhi as the venue of arbitration and have vested the Courts at Gautam Budh Nagar with exclusive jurisdiction.

Signature Not Verified

5. Further, this Court also derives support from the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CVS Insurance and Investments vs. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd. [(2017) SCC OnLine Del 12149] where the Court examined and interpreted an arbitration clause which was of a similar nature as well as similarly worded. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are set out herein under:

“3. Article 12 of the Agreement dated 1.1.2013 assume relevance for the controversy raised and it notes: ARTICLE 12 : ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION

12.1 This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted