$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25.03.2026 + ARB.P. 1818/2025 M/S LEASE PLAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhilesh Pradhan, Advocate versus P. D. MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION .....Respondent Through: None 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 Lease Agreement dated 06.06.2018, Agreement

2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Article 10.2, which reads as under:

“10.2(i) Arbitration: All disputes, differences, claims and demands arising under or pursuant to or concerning this Agreement shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendment or re amendment or re-enactment thereof subject to following rules:

(a) Arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be Signature Not Verified appointed by LPIN.

(b)The language of arbitration shall be English and place of Arbitration shall be Delhi, (c) The respective costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties in the first instance; however, the successful party shall be entitled to the costs of arbitration including legal and recovery costs.

(d) The award shall be a speaking award and shall be binding on the parties.

(ii) Jurisdiction:

Subject to 10.1 (i), the laws of India shall govern this Agreement. The Courts in New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter, claim or dispute arising out of or in any way, relating to this Agreement.”

3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 23.08.2025.

4. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 14.01.2026, this Court noted that service upon the Respondent had been duly effected; however, since the Respondent was not represented, adverse orders were deferred in the interest of justice. Even today, none appears on behalf of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

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 Spinning³, after taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Signature Not Verified Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, comprehensively delineated the contours of judicial intervention at the stage of Section 11 of 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) in 2015. Thus, although both these provisions intend to compel parties to abide by their mutual in