$~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 + ARB.P. 149/2025 ANIL KUMAR WADHWA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate versus M/S M2M BUILDTECH PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Lalit Nayyar, Advocate for R-2 & 7.

Mr. Vijay Kasana, Advocate for R-5 & 8.

2 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 72/2024 ANIL KUMAR WADHWA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate versus M2M BUILDTECH PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Lalit Nayyar, Advocate for R-2 & 7.

Mr. Vijay Kasana, Advocate for R-5 & 8.

CORAM:

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

Signature Not Verified HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

ARB.P. 149/2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act , seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement dated 02.02.2022, Agreement . The said clause is set out herein below:

“8.0 Arbitration: All matters, disputes, differences or claims arising between the parties as to effect interpretation of the Agreement, or as to their rights, duties or abilities thereunder or as to any act, matter or thing arising out of, implementation or interpretation of the agreement. consequent to or in connection with the present Agreement or as to the validity of the Agreement shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and all amendments from time to time.

(a) That Parties will appoint Sole Arbitrator mutually nominated and named who will be either retired District Judge or High Court Judge. Any party may invoke Arbitration Clause after giving proper notice of 30 days to the other party.

(b) The place and seat of the Arbitration shall be at Delhi, India.

(c) The cost of any arbitration proceeding between the parties shall be before equally.

(d) The existence of difference between the parties or the initiation of continuance of any arbitration proceedings referred to above shall not delay or postpone the performance of the undisputed obligation(s) and the arbitrator shall take full cognizance and give due consideration to such performance, if any, in making of the final award.”

2. The place and seat of arbitration as per the said clause is Delhi, and the Agreement also provides that the Sole Arbitrator will be either a retired learned District Judge or an Hon’ble High Court Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Notice under Signature Not Verified Section 21 of the Act is dated 08.05.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, submits that they have no objection if the matter is referred to arbitration.

5. At this juncture, 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 paramete