* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 09.04.2026 + ARB.P. 31/2026 SH. LAJPAT BATRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arun Bhattacharya, Advocate.

versus M/S E-PACK POLYMERS PVT. LTD. UNIT-II THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR. .....Respondents 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, $~2, seeking the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes inter se the parties arising out of the Contract dated 06.09.2024, Contract

2. Clause 10 of the Contract provides for the adjudication of disputes arising between the parties by way of Arbitration. Clause 10 of the Contract reads as follows:

“10. Arbitration:

In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties arising howsoever from this contract, the same shall, unless amicably settled, be referred to two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party. The two arbitrators shall, before entering upon the reference appoint an umpire. The decision of the two arbitrator’s o the umpires shall be final and binding between the parties. The

1 Act

arbitration proceedings shall take place in Delhi. There is an arrangement for arbitration within the meaning of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 including any statutory re-enactment or modification thereof.”

3. It is a matter of record that the Petitioner invoked the said Arbitration clause vide Legal Notice dated 16.09.2025, in terms of Section 21 of the Act.

4. As per the record, Respondent No. 1 is a company, and Respondent No. 2 is a Director of Respondent No. 1.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the Respondents have been duly served, however, they have chosen not to enter an appearance in the present proceedings. The record further reflects that, in the course of service through speed post, Respondent No. 1 refused to accept notice of the present proceedings. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that service upon the Respondents stands duly effected in accordance with law. Consequently, there exists no impediment for this Court to proceed further with the present proceedings.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and, with his able assistance, has perused the material placed on record.

7. 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 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, a