$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25.02.2026 + ARB.P. 112/2026 & I.A. 1125/2026 (Delay of 138 days in Re-

filing the petition)

ROYAL DRINK XPURT .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Anand, Advocates versus MS CENTRAL SECRETARIAT CLUB .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given by Advocate CORAM:

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

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 Catering-Cum Bar Services Agreement dated 15.11.2019, Agreement

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 9, which reads as under:

“9. Arbitration: In case of any kind of dispute arises between the parties of this agreement in future as to the interpretation or the terms of this agreement or as per the performance or non- performance of the terms thereof or in connection with or arising out of this agreement, the same shall be settled by mutual Signature Not Verified negotiations, and if necessary will be referred to an independent arbitrator solely appointed by the President of CSC, whose decision shall will be binding on both the parties. The proceedings shall be held at New Delhi and conducted In English Language.”

3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 21.04.2025.

4. 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 introduction of Section 11(6-A)

Signature Not Verified 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 sections are different.

112. The difference between Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act is also evident from the scope of these provisions. Some of these differences are:

112.1. While Section 8 empowers any “judicial authority” to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 11, the power to refer has been exclusively conferred upon the High Court and the Supreme Court.

112.2. Under Section 37, an appeal lies against the refusal of the judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration, whereas no such provision for appeal exists for a refusal under Section 11.

112.3. The standard of scrutiny provided unde