$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:16.02.2026 + ARB.P. 45/2026 AKASH ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Ms.

Aanchal Bindal & Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates.

versus KAMLESH DEVI SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for the purpose of resolution of disputes that are stated to have arisen inter se the parties arising out of the Agreement dated 15.05.2012, which was renewed every year on 17.05.2013, 20.05.2014 and 01.06.2015, and which was valid till 31.05.2016, after which the said Agreement was not renewed between the parties.

2. The present Petition has come to be filed as a result of the Petitioner withdrawing the Civil Suit being CS (COMM.) 286/2022 titled “Grand Chemical Works v. P.R. Enterprises”, Civil Suit vide Order dated 06.09.2025, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) – 05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Commercial Court. The said Civil suit was filed by the Petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 5,02,937/- (Rupees Five Lakh Two Thousand Nine thirty seven only) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a.

3. The recovery of the said amount is contended to be the subject matter in respect of which disputes have arisen and as a result thereof, the present Petition has been preferred.

4. Admittedly, the Respondent chose to raise a jurisdictional objection as to the maintainability of the said Civil Suit before the learned Commercial Court and to this effect, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for rejection of the plaint on the ground that an arbitration clause exists in the Agreement as between the parties and as a result thereof, a Civil suit was not maintainable.

5. In addition thereto, the Respondent herein had preferred an Application under Section 8 of the Act before the learned Commercial Court, contending that in view of the arbitration clause , the parties be referred to arbitration.

6. All the above stated Applications also came to be disposed of as a result of the suit itself being withdrawn by the Petitioner.

7. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the present Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the Petitioner had earlier instituted a Civil Suit before the learned Commercial Court in disregard of the express arbitration clause in the Agreement. It is further contended that such conduct, in effect, amounts to approbation and reprobation, as the Petitioner, having elected to pursue a Civil Suit despite the existence the arbitration clause and now, seeks to press into service the very same arbitration clause for the purpose of seeking relief in the present Petition.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the present Petition is not maintainable on the ground of being barred by limitation, since at the time of withdrawing of the suit no liberty was granted by the learned Commercial Court to prefer the present Petition and over three months and thirty days have elapsed since the cause of action arose.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent, in support of the same, submits that the disputes between the parties arose as early as in the year 2021, and the Civil Suit came to be withdrawn only on 06.02.2025 and the present Petition has been preferred thereafter, therefore, the present Petition is clearly barred by limitation.

10. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the parties had earlier submitted themselves to Arbitration which commenced upon the reference of the disputes under the same Agreement by virtue of an Order dated 21.08.2023, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the disputes as raised therein have been adjudicated upon and a Petition