$~1 to 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 + ARB.P. 634/2024 SATNAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.

Rashmi Gogoi and Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr.

Arjun Nanda, Advocates.

2 + ARB.P. 635/2024 SATNAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.

Rashmi Gogoi and Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr.

Arjun Nanda, Advocates.

3 + ARB.P. 636/2024 SATNAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.

Rashmi Gogoi and Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr.

Arjun Nanda, Advocates.

+ ARB.P. 637/2024 SATNAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.

Rashmi Gogoi and Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr.

Arjun Nanda, Advocates.

5 + ARB.P. 638/2024 SATNAM ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.

Rashmi Gogoi and Mr. Aryan Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumeer Sodhi and Mr.

Arjun Nanda, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petitions have 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 similarly worded but separate Development Agreements dated

30.06.2011, Agreement

2. The said Agreements contain identically worded Arbitration Clauses, being Clause 20 in respective arguments. For the ready reference, the said arbitration clause has been reproduced hereunder:

“20. ARBITRATION:

All disputes and differences which may arise between the Parties hereto and which cannot be settled amicably with regard to this Agreement, meaning and effect of this Agreement or any part hereof or in any way related to or pertaining thereto shall be referred to arbitration of the sole arbitrator to be appointed mutually by the Parties in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Award made by the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including any statutory modifications and/or re-enactment from time to time. The venue of arbitration shall be Delhi and the jurisdiction will be of the courts in Delhi.”

3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide separate legal notices dated 21.12.2022.

4. In these petitions, vide Order dated 27.03.2025, this Court had directed the parties to arrive at a consensus regarding the name of an Arbitrator, failing which it was observed that this Court would proceed to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The relevant portions of the said Order read as under:

“ *****

10. In the present case, the existence of the Arbitration Agreement is not in dispute. However, the respondent has disputes regarding the merits of the claim being barred by the law of imitation.

11. On perusal, I am of the view that the issue of limitation raised by the respondent is within the domain of an Arbitral Tribunal, as the present petitions have been filed within 3 years from the notice, invoking arbitration. 12. For the said reasons, I am inclined to allow the present petitions.

13. The matter is directed to be listed on 16.05.2025 and the parties are directed to come to a consensus regarding the name of an Arbitrator, failing which, thi