Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
Flemingo (Dfs) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority Of India – Respondent
ARB.P. 853/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Achint Singh Gyani
For the Respondents: Digvijay Rai, Archit Mishra, Sachin Yadav, Ravinder Sulkhian, Ayush Annand
The referral court's role under Section 11(6) is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and the limitation of the petition, excluding periods of bona fide mediation. Issues of claim-specific limitation and arbitrability are reserved for the Arbitrator.
Headnote:(A) Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Scope of Referral Court - The jurisdiction of the referral court is limited to a prima facie assessment of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and whether the petition was filed within the prescribed limitation period. (Para 22, 23, 24)
(B) Section 21 Notice - Essentials of Valid Invocation - A valid notice invoking arbitration must clearly state the disputes, demand resolution as per the arbitration clause, and express the intention to resort to the arbitral process if unresolved; mere requests for resolution without quantification or demand are not valid invocations. (Para 29, 30)
(C) Limitation - Breaking Point - The cause of action for the purpose of limitation commences when the claims of a party are specifically rejected by the respondent. (Para 32)
(D) Limitation - Bona fide Mediation - The period spent by parties in bona fide attempts to resolve disputes through mediation, especially when suggested by the respondent, shall be excluded for the computation of the limitation period. (Para 40, 41, 42) (E) Arbitrability - Scope of Enquiry - Whether specific claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement is a matter for the Arbitrator to decide; the referral court should not bifurcate claims into arbitrable and non-arbitrable. (Para 44, 45, 46, 47)
Issues: Whether the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was barred by limitation and whether the disputes were arbitrable.
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties arising out of the Licence Agreement dated 30.09.2011.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the operation of duty-free shops at airports.
3. The respondent is a body corporate constituted by the Central Government under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The respondent is engaged in the creation, upgradation, maintenance and management of civil aviation infrastructure in India.
4. The respondent, with the intention of maintaining amenities and facilities for the passengers, decided to open up duty-free shops at the Amritsar Airport (“the Airport”). Accordingly, the respondent issued a notice inviting tenders for the development and operation of duty-free shops at the Airport.
5. The petitioner, being desirous of operating the duty free shops at the Airport in the Customs Hold departure/transit and Arrival Areas, submitted a tender to the respondent, which was accepted by the respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded the licence to develop and operate duty free shops vide the Letter of Award dated 10.06.2009. Thereafter, the Licence Agreement dated 30.09.2011 was executed between the parties for a duration of 5 years commencing from 10.06.2009 to 09.06.2014. The petitioner was allotted the following spaces for establishment and operation of duty-free shops:
i. Space measuring 66.64 SQM in the Arrival area
ii. Space measuring 46.58 SQM in the Departure area
6. The Agreement contained an Arbitration Clause being clause No. 57 which reads as under:
“57. If any dispute, difference or question shall at any time hereinafter arise between the parties hereto or their respective representatives or assigns in respect of the construction of these presents or the Contract, or concerning anything contained or arising out of these presents or as to rights, liabilities or dues of the said parties there under, which cannot be mutually resolved by the parties, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator on agreed terms under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If the parties fail to agree for appointment of sole arbitrator within 30 days, the Arbitrator Tribunal can be constituted with the appointment of one Arbitrator by the Claimant and one by the Respondent and these two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as the Presiding arbitrator. The venue of Arbitration shall be New Delhi, India or any other place in India as may be decided mutually. The award of the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding on the parties.”
7. Subsequently, the possession of the duty-free shops on the arrival side and the departure side of the new Airport terminal was handed over to the petitioner on 21.07.2009 and 26.10.2009 respectively.
8. Since disputes arose between the parties concerning excess rent and concession fee charged by the respondent, there were several correspondences sent by the petitioner raising the said disputes before the respondent and the same were summarily rejected by the respondent on 28.09.2021 and 11.10.2021. In the meanwhile, the term of the Licence Agreement expired, and the respondent floated a new Request for Proposal for granting concession rights at the Airport. The bid of the petitioner for the same was accepted, and the Concession Agreement dated 18.04.2016 was entered into between the parties.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner’s claims were summarily rejected by the respondent, the petitioner invoked Arbitration vide legal notice dated 14.03.2022. After several follow-ups, the respondent replied to the said notice on 06.02.2023, sugges
