$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 + ARB.P. 95/2026 & I.A. 972/2026 (Ex.)

SHRI KRISHNA SUPER SPECIALITY INSTITUTE OF AYURVEDA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Ms.

Shivali, Ms. Ekta Tomar, Mr. Abhedeya S. Verma and Mr.

Abhishek Nagar, Advocates.

versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate. CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [“the Act”], seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Agreement, which was signed between the parties and was confirmed by virtue of the letter dated 16.03.2022. 2. The Arbitration Clause is set out at Clause 29 of the Agreement, which reads as follows:

“29. In the event of any question, dispute or difference whatsoever at any time arising under the conditions of Agreement or in any other manner under this Agreement or in any way relating there-to or the true meaning or interpretation of any of the provisions thereof (except any matters for which the decision is specifically provided for in the conditions of the Agreement), the same shall be referred to for decision to a sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of Delhi or his nominee and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties.

In the event of the arbitrator appointed by the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of, Delhi, or his nominee dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being incapable or unable to act for any reason, whatsoever, it shall be lawful for the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of Delhi or his nominee to appoint another arbitrator in place of outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid.

Subject to the above the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any modification or replacement and the rules hereunder and any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause.”

3. At the outset, it is apposite to note that the legal position governing the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act is no longer res integra. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg., (2024) 12 SCC 1, after taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 comprehensively delineated the contours of judicial intervention at the stage of Section 11 of the Act. The excerpt of Krish Spg (supra) reads as under: -

“(c) Judicial interference under the 1996 Act

110. The parties have been conferred with the power to decide and agree on the procedure to be adopted for appointing arbitrators. In cases where the agreed upon procedure fails, the courts have been vested with the power to appoint arbitrators upon the request of a party, to resolve the deadlock between the parties in appointing the arbitrators.

111. Section 11 of the 1996 Act is provided to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties to settle their disputes by arbitration in situations where the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator(s). The parameters of judicial review laid down for Section 8 differ from those prescribed for Section 11. The view taken in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 and affirmed in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 that Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act are complementary in nature was legislatively overruled by the introduction of Section 11(6-A) in 2015. Thus, although both these provisions intend to compel parties to abide by their mutual intention to arbitrate, yet the scope of powers conferred upon the courts under both the