$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27^th March, 2026 + ARB.P. 93/2026 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. .....Petitioner Through: None.

versus ADARSH NOBEL CORPORATION LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Thakur, Mr. Rishi Raj, Mr.

Sujeet Kumar, Mr. Ningthem Oinam, Advocates (M:9810141402)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, for adjudication of disputes arising between the parties out of the Contract Agreement dated 06^th January, 2018.

2. The facts, as culled out from the pleadings, are as follows:

I. The petitioner, being engaged in the activities of refining, production, etc., of natural gas and petrochemicals, had awarded the work of “Provision of Additional VR Tank at Paradip Refinery” to the respondent, vide Letter of Award dated 29^th November, 2017 (“LOA”), which was to be completed within a period of 18 months from the date of the LOA.

II. The respondent, on 11^th June, 2018, stopped the work on the site in question. Further, despite multiple notices dated 29^th June, 2018, 23^rd July, 2018 and 11^th August, 2018 sent by the petitioner to the respondent, no visible action for resuming the work at the site in question was undertaken by the respondent.

III. The petitioner issued a termination notice dated 13^th December, 2018 to the respondent, thereby, terminating the awarded Contract Agreement in terms of the Clause 7 of the General Conditions of Contract (“GCC”).

IV. The petitioner, to protect its interests and for recovery of the expenses, on account of the failure of the respondent to complete the awarded work, had sent a communication dated 22^nd March, 2023, to the respondent. By way of the said communication, the petitioner claimed provisional liability of Rs. 4,88,06,932.83/-, against risk and expense recovery, from the respondent.

V. In response to the aforesaid communication, the respondent approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEF Council”), Orissa at Cuttack, by way of the petition bearing MSEFC Case No. 56/2022, under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”).

VI. The MSEF Council passed an arbitral award dated 10^th July, 2023, thereby, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,43,14,318/- to the respondent, along with future interests.

VII. Subsequently, the respondent filed an enforcement petition bearing EXP. No. 585/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bhubaneshwar, seeking enforcement of arbitral award dated 10^th July, 2023, wherein, the Executing Court dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner, and proceeded to issue warrant of attachment vide order dated

14^th July, 2025.

VIII. Being aggrieved by the arbitral award dated 10^th July, 2023, the petitioner filed writ petitions being, W.P.(C) 30966/2024 and W.P.(C)

20210/2025 before the Orissa High Court, whereby, the Orissa High Court by way of the judgments dated 20^th September, 2025 and 10^th October, 2025, respectively, set aside the arbitral award dated 10^th July, 2023, on the ground of having been passed in lack of inherent jurisdiction.

IX. The petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 9 of the GCC, by sending a Notice dated 30^th June, 2025, to the respondent.

X. Pursuant to the Notice dated 30^th June, 2025, the respondent vide reply dated 27^th July, 2025, refused the proposal of appointment of arbitrator, by relying upon the arbitral award dated 10^th July, 2023, passed by MSEF Council in MSEFC Case No. 56/2022. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has handed over to this Court a copy of the judgment dated 12^th February, 2026, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in appeals being W.A. No. 1677/2025 and W.A. No. 1856/2025, whereby, judgments dated

2