* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 19.03.2026 + ARB.P. 919/2025 OM PRAKASH CHAURASIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Onkar Nath, Advocate.

versus ESHA MAKIN .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~3, seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Lease Deed Agreement dated

25.01.2021, Agreement to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

2. The material on record indicates that the Arbitration Clause is set out at Clause 49 in the Agreement and the same is reproduced hereunder:

“49. That in case of any dispute or difference arising out of or in relation to this Lease Deed and the Parties fail to amicably resolve the same, then the same shall be resolved and settled with the provision of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof and the Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed mutually by Lessor and the Lessee.

1 Act

The place of Arbitration venue and seed shall be at New Delhi and the proceedings shall be conducted in the English language only.”

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Section 21 notice dated 31.03.2025, as well as the Reply thereto dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Respondent through its counsel.

4. On the previous dates, this Court had directed the Petitioner for issuance of fresh notice to the Respondent, as service had not been effected. However, it is noted that the address as reflected in the Agreement is identical to the address mentioned in the Reply to the Section 21 notice, the memo of parties, and the address at which service was attempted through speed post and courier.

5. It is further noticed that, as per the speed post tracking report, the remark recorded is “no such person at the said address”, whereas the courier report indicates that the “addressee has left without instructions”.

6. This Court also takes note of the fact that a Petition under Section 9 of the Act was preferred by the Respondent before the learned Patiala House Courts, wherein the same address of the Respondent is reflected in the memo of parties.

7. This Court further notes that, pursuant to the Order dated 09.02.2026, the Petitioner has also effected service upon the learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of the Respondent in the proceedings before the learned Patiala House Courts.

8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner has handed over the copies of e-mail correspondence exchanged between his office and the office of the counsel appearing for the Respondent before the learned Patiala House Courts.

9. From the e-mail dated 18.03.2026, it transpires that the said counsel has sought discharge from the Section 9 Petition.

10. A subsequent e-mail dated 19.03.2026 at 12:11 A.M. sent by the said counsel, affirms that the address of the Respondent remains the same as reflected in the memo of parties. The said communication also furnishes certain e-mail addresses and contact numbers of the Respondent.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid contact details are the same on which service had earlier been attempted, and, by way of abundant caution, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has once again attempted service upon the Respondent through e-mail as well as WhatsApp on the contact details as provided in the e-mail.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the Affidavit of Service dated 18.03.2026 filed vide Diary No. 122952/2026 and which is handed over in Court. Let the same be taken on record.

13. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that service upon the Respondent stands duly effected and the Respondent has chosen not to appear before the Court. Therefore, there exists no impedim