$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 + ARB.P. 2023/2025 PCM WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS PVT.LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Priya Wadhwa, Advocate.

versus ADITYA KALRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manav Sabharwal and Ms.

Shivangi Gupta, Advocates.

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, Act, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Appointment letter dated 17.01.2021, Agreement

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 17, which reads as under:

“17.1 You agree that any future disputes between you and the Company ( the “parties”) including but not limited to disputes arising out of or related to this letter, shall be resolved by binding arbitration before the Indian Council of Arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Indian Council of Arbitration in effect. At that time.

17.2 The parties agree initially to attempt to resolve any such disputes in good faith, which may include voluntary non-binding mediation paid for by the Company.

17.3 If the matter is not resolved, the parties agree that the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration according to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

17.4 Arbitration shall be the exclusive final remedy for any dispute between the parties.

17.5 The parties agree that the arbitration award shall be enforceable in any court having competent jurisdiction to enforce this letter, so long as the arbitrator’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence on the whole and the arbitrator has not made errors of law; however, either party may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction, regarding or related to matters involving the Company’s confidential, proprietary or trade secret information, seeking preliminary injunctive relief in court to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable injury before the matter can be heard in arbitration. 17.6 The language of Arbitration proceedings shall be English. It is further expressly agreed and declared that the courts in Delhi alone shall have exclusive jurisdictions herein for the purpose of Arbitration as well as for any other issues arising out of this letter.”

3. 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 Spinning, (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 11of 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 intr