$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25.03.2026 + ARB.P. 2125/2025 NUFLOWER FOODS AND NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Anuj Berry, Mr. Sourabh Rath, Ms. Gauri Pasricha and Ms. Jayati Sinha, Advocates versus SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS PVT LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Ms. Preena Salgia Sethi, Advocate CORAM:

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

I.A. 7990/2026 (Delay of 8 days in filing the reply)

1. The present application, under section 151 of the Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the Respondent seeking the condonation of the delay of 08 days in filing the Reply to the present petition.

2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Let the Reply form part of the record.

3. The present application stands disposed of.

ARB.P. 2125/2025

4. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeking the appointment of Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in terms of Clause 16.4 of the Purchase Orders dated Signature Not Verified

18.08.2022 (bearing PO No. NFN/PO/22-23/0359-1), 30.08.2022 (bearing PO No. NFN/PO/22-23/0394) and 29.09.2022 (bearing PO No. NFN/PO/22- 23/0523) [“POs”].

5. The said POs contain an Arbitration Clause, being Article 16.4, which reads as under:

“16 Force Majeure xxxxx

4. Arbitration - Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this PO shall be settled by Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English in New Delhi by the sole arbitrator appointed by the Buyer. The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally between the parties unless decided otherwise by the arbitrator.”

6. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 02.10.2025.

7. Ms. Preena Salgia Sethi, learned counsel for the Respondent enters appearance and raises an objection to the present Petition. She submits that, subsequent to the issuance of the POs, the goods were duly supplied, and such supplies were accompanied by certain tax invoices. It is her contention that the said tax invoices stipulate that any disputes arising therefrom would be subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

8. She further relies upon the Judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M/s CMS Computers Ltd v. M/s Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Civil Revision Petition No. 320/2022., particularly paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which read as follows:

Signature Not Verified “3. The case of the petitioner is that as per the request of the petitioner, respondent has supplied the materials from Chennai to New Delhi and there was no transaction in Bangalore. It is further contended that the petitioner who is the defendant No. 1, is registered in Mumbai. It is also contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and respondent, in case of any dispute between them, the Courts in Mumbai alone has jurisdiction and that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the same. The attention of this Court is drawn towards towards the purchase order, which is filed along with the plaint. The purchase order is issued by the petitioner herein and in the said purchase order it is mentioned that the Courts in Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties. Further from the purchase order as well as the tax invoice filed along with the plaint, shows that the plaintiff is situated at Chennai and defendant No.1 is situated at Mumbai. However, the respondent submits that the purchase order is only an offer made by the petitioner and that was not the accepted in toto by the respondent and the respondent when supplied the goods to the petitioner issued the tax invoices which are also filed along with the plaint and it