* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20.02.2026 + ARB.P. 1594/2025 OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kuljeet Rawal and Mr.

Aditya Joshi, Advocates.

versus SHRI DEEPANKUR PATIYAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arshi Arora and Mr. Pallav Aneja, Advocates.

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, $~3, 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 Clause 20 as set out in Management Service Agreement dated 15.11.2024, Agreement, and which reads as follows:

“.....

20. Dispute Resolution. All dispute shall be settled amicably within 60 (sixty) days by negotiation and discussion among the Parties. Failing which, Parties shall have the right to refer such matter to arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Agreement shall be governed by Laws

1 Act

of India and courts at New Delhi shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to preside on matters arising hereunder. The provisions of this clause shall survive expiry or termination of this Agreement. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English and seat of arbitration shall be New Delhi.”

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that although objections to the present Petition have been filed, the same could not be brought on record. A copy of the objections, as filed, has been handed over across the bar. The objections, in essence, are twofold. Firstly, it is contended that the present Petition has been signed by Ms. Ankita Priya without due authorisation, it being the Respondent’s case that the Company Secretary, Mr. Arjun Singh Rawat, was not competent to confer such authority. Secondly, it is urged that Clause 20 of the Agreement contemplates negotiations and discussions between the parties, which, according to the Respondent, constitute a mandatory pre-condition prior to invocation of arbitration. 3. With regard to the first objection, this Court has perused the Letter of Authority placed on record as Document-1. The material reflects that, on the strength of a Board Resolution dated 23.11.2023, the Company Secretary authorised Ms. Ankita Priya to act on behalf of the Petitioner. In view thereof, the contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent that Mr. Arjun Singh Rawat lacked competence to grant such authorisation is found to be misconceived and unsustainable.

4. Adverting now to the second objection, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the clause envisaging negotiations or discussions between the parties ought to be encouraged as a matter of commercial prudence, the same is directory rather than mandatory in nature and cannot operate as an impediment to the constitution of the

arbitral tribunal. This position also finds support from the judgments of this Court in Satpal Sharma v. Union of India, 2015 SCC Online Del 10767, Union of India v. Baga Bros, 2017 SCC Online Del 8989, Sarvesh Security Services (P) Ltd. v. DSIIDC, 2018 SCC Online Del 7996, Siemens Ltd. v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2018 SCC Online 7158 and Ravindra Kumar

Verma v. BPTP Ltd., 2014 SCC Online Del 6602

5. 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 Spinning⁸, 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 11of the Act. The excerpt of Krish Spg (supra) reads as under:-

“(c) Ju