207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-641-2025 Date of decision : 06.02.2026 Reckon Industries Limited …….Applicant Versus RPS Infrastructure Limited ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Present: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate (arguing counsel)

(through video conferencing), Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate (through video conferencing), and Mr. Rajat Singla, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, (arguing counsel), with Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate, Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate, and Mr. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Instant application u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’ for brevity), seeks appointment of Sole Arbitrator.

2. Reply filed on behalf of the respondent by way of affidavit dated 12.01.2026, duly sworn by its authorized representative, is taken on record and perused.

3. The rival parties herein entered into Collaboration Agreement dated 22.05.2007 (Annexure P-1), Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated 23.05.2007 (Annexure P-2) and Deed of Settlement dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure P-7), containing an arbitration clause.

3.1 Clause 19 of the Deed of Settlement dated 13.10.2022, invoked to raise the dispute, reads as under :

“19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE a. That any dispute or difference arising between the parties as to the terms or interpretation of this Deed of Settlement or any matter or issue connected therewith or as to their rights, duties or liabilities thereunder, failing amicable resolution through mutual negotiations, shall be referred to and be settled by way of arbitration. The arbitrator shall be appointed by the parties mutually. The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any subsequent enactment or amendment thereto and the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be at Faridabad or Delhi NCR only and the arbitral fee and expenses connected therewith will be shared equally by the parties.”

3.2 Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-13) upon the respondent invoking arbitration clause and calling upon the respondents to concur but to no avail. Therefore, applicant invoked jurisdiction of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator by filing this application.

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on instructions and on the basis of affidavit dated 12.01.2026 filed on behalf of the respondent, does not dispute execution of arbitration agreement, exhaustion of remedy by applicant under the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between rival parties, service of notice, dispute between the parties being arbitrable and the cause not being a deadwood.

5. The law on the scope of examination u/s 11 (6) of 1996 Act is well settled. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1 (paragraphs 154.2, 154.3 and 154.4) held that the Court may undertake a prima facie examination at this stage and reject an application where it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable. In this context, the relevant extract of the said judgment is as follows :

“154.2 Scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act is identical but extremely limited and restricted.

154.3 The general rule and principle, in view of the legislative mandate clear from Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33 of 2019, and the principle of severability and competence- competence, is that the Arbitral Tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine and decide all questions of non- arbitrability. The court has been conferred power of “second look” on aspects of non-arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Section 34 (2) (a) or sub clause (i) of Section 34 (