* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 15.04.2026 + ARB.P. 2048/2025 M/S. TECHMAN ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Ansha Varma and Ms. Apurva Srivastava, Advocates.

versus SMT. MANJU JAIN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocates along with Mr.

Sumeher Bajaj, Mr. Auritro Mukharjee and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

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

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~2 , seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes inter se the parties.

2. The Arbitration Clause is set out at Clause 43 of the Collaboration Agreement dated 22.07.2004, Agreement, which reads as follows:

“43. Any dispute and/or difference arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including with respect to an interpretation of any provision hereof, (other than the dispute referred to in Clause

1 Act

26 above) the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (or any other enactment/statute in force on the said date). The number of Arbitrators shall be three, each Party hereto nominating their respective Arbitrators and the two nominated Arbitrators jointly appointing the third Arbitrator. The place of Arbitration shall be New Delhi.”

3. Material on record reflects that a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 03.01.2023.

4. 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, although both these provisions intend to compel parties to abide by their mutual intention to arbitrate, yet the scope of powers conferred upon the courts under both the sections are different.

112. The difference between Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act is also evident from the scope of these provisions. Some of these differences are:

112.1. While Section 8 empowers any “judicial authority” to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 11, the power to refer has been exclusively conferred upon the High Court and the Supreme Court.

112.2. Under Section 37, an appeal lies against the refusal of the judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration, whereas no such provision for appeal exists for a refusal under Section 11.

112