Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution cannot be routinely exercised to interfere with an Arbitral Tribunal's order rejecting a Section 16 jurisdictional challenge, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity, as the statutory remedy lies under Section 34.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.07.2026 [hereafter ‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitral proceedings arising out of ARB.P. 1964/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter ‘A&C Act’], calling in question the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, has been rejected.

2. The facts emerging from the petition and the record are that the petitioner is engaged in the marketing and sale of consumer electronic products. The parties initially entered into a Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement dated 24.05.2022, which came into effect from 01.06.2022 and was to remain in force for eleven months. Under the said Agreement of 2022, the petitioner was responsible for procuring raw material from vendors approved by the respondent and manufacturing finished goods therefrom, which were to be supplied to the respondent against purchase orders. Clause 14 of the said Agreement contained an arbitration clause. It is stated that this Agreement admittedly expired by efflux of time. In or about March 2023, the arrangement between the parties changed. The responsibility for procuring raw material was thereafter undertaken by the respondent, which supplied Semi Knocked Down (“SKD”) kits to the petitioner. The petitioner was to manufacture finished goods from these kits on a job-work basis. On 13.03.2023, the petitioner forwarded to the respondent, by email, a draft Manufacturing Service Agreement [hereafter ‘Draft Agreement’]. Clause 12 of the Draft Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which provided for Delhi as the venue of arbitration. The said Clause reads as under:

“12. Dispute Resolution

12.1 All disputes, differences or claims arising out of or in connection with this Agreement including, without limitation, any question regarding its existence, validity, construction, performance, termination or alleged violation shall be resolved by binding arbitration. The venue for such arbitration shall be Delhi and all proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The award shall be final and conclusive on all parties to this Agreement, whether or not such parties have taken part in the arbitration, and shall be subject to forced execution in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

3. As per petitioner, on 27.06.2023, the respondent forwarded to the petitioner another revised draft Contract Manufacturing Agreement, which contained a dispute resolution clause at Clause 23. This draft provided for Gurugram as the seat of arbitration and also contemplated a pre-arbitration dispute resolution process. The parties continued to correspond in relation to the proposed agreement, including by email dated 18.07.2023. As per petitioner, neither of the two drafts was executed or signed by the parties. During the financial year 2023-24, the respondent supplied SKD kits to the petitioner on several occasions and raised purchase orders for manufacture of the finished goods on a job-work basis. The petitioner received the raw material, manufactured the finished goods and raised invoices.

4. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties. The respondent initially issued a notice dated 18.08.2025 invoking arbitration under Clause 14 of the 2022 Agreement. The said notice was thereafter withdrawn and a fresh notice dated 01.09.2025 was issued, this time invoking Clause 12 of the Draft Agreement. In the meanwhile, the respondent had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the A&C Act, being O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 368/2025. Notice was issued in the said proceedings on 09.09.2025. The petitioner did not appear and, by order dated 21.11.2025, this Court proceeded against the petitioner ex parte and disposed of the petition. A further order was passed in the said pro