* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17.04.2026 + ARB.P. 435/2026 JONES LANG LASALLE BUILDING OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Singh, Mr.

Shubham Jaiswal, Mr. Vikrant Singh, Mr. Upendra Yadav, Mr. Sahil Sansanwal & Mr. Tushar Yadav, Advs.

versus GUPTA HOUSING PRIVATE LTD. AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Ms.

Mayanka Dhawan & Mr.

Vikram Kalra, Advs.

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, $~31 seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of the Property Management Service Agreement dated 20.10.2021, Agreement

2. The Agreement is stated to contain a Dispute resolution Clause, which contemplates adjudication of disputes arising out of the said Agreement, inter se the parties, by way of Arbitration. In this regard,

1 Act

reliance is placed on Clause 22 of the Agreement, which reads as under:

“22. GOVERNING LAW & DISPUTE RESOLUTION

22.1. If any dispute arises out of or in connection with this Agreement, representatives of the Parties with authority to settle the dispute will, within fourteen (14) days of a written request from one Party to the other, meet in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

22.2. Failing amicable settlement as provided for in Clause 22.1, disputes and differences arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the then prevailing Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Parties agree that the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi and the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Parties mutually within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of the first recommendation for an arbitrator in written form from a Party to the other Party. If the Parties fail to decide on the sole arbitrator within stipulated period of 15 (Fifteen) days the sole arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the then prevailing Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language

22.3. Clause 22.2 does not preclude a Party from seeking injunction and preliminary injunction from a court of law in accordance with Clause 22.4 and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

22.4. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the Republic of India. The Parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Mumbai alone.

22.5. This Clause shall survive any termination or expiry of this Agreement.”

3. The material on record reflects that the statutory requirement of invocation of the aforestated Arbitration Clause, under Section 21 of the Act, has been complied with vide Legal Notice dated 30.04.2025. The same has been responded to, by the Respondents, vide a Letter dated 30.052025, wherein the Respondents did not consent to appointment of an Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, at the outset, submits that although a reply to the present Petition has been filed, the same could not, unfortunately, be brought on record.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondents has, therefore, handed over a copy of the said reply across the bar. The Registry is directed to ensure that the same is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondents raises a two-fold preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Petition. First, that the present Petition is premature, inasmuch as the Petitioner has failed to comply with the pre-arbitration procedure contemplated under the Arbitration Clause. Second, that the Agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts in Mumbai and, therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the Respondents, elaborating on the firs