IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:19.02.2026 M/S K.D. Solar Systems ......Petitioner Versus M/S Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

.

.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, Advocate (Through V.C.) and Ms. Smriti Sahay, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate and Ms. Sonika Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in the form of two purchase orders, which have been attached along with the present petition vide Annexure P-2. The aforesaid purchase orders are dated 13.06.2017 and 07.09.2017 respectively and in pursuance of these purchase orders, four work orders were issued that are ancillary to the aforesaid purchase orders.

He further submitted that both the purchase orders contain arbitration clauses, i.e., Clause Nos. 10 and 23, which provide that in the event of any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the purchase orders, including any question regarding interpretation or any other matter, the parties shall resolve such dispute or difference by reference to arbitration, to be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by a sole arbitrator appointed by the purchaser in accordance with law.

3. He further submitted that since a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner served a notice upon the respondent vide Annexure P- 11 dated 15.10.2023 invoking the arbitration clauses. The respondent vide reply dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure P-12) denied the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that this Hon’ble Court may appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there were in fact a total of six purchase orders and eight work orders between the parties. With regard to four purchase orders and the remaining work orders, as per the clause, the Court of jurisdiction and seat of arbitration was at Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner with regard to the said purchase orders and work orders has already invoked the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Delhi High Court under Section 11 of the Act, in which an arbitrator was appointed. After constitution of the said Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the sole arbitrator, the arbitration proceedings are in progress. He submitted that before the aforesaid learned arbitrator, the petitioner has made a statement of claim not only with regard to those purchase orders and work orders which were the subject of dispute to be adjudicated by the arbitrator in Delhi, but also with regard to those purchase orders and work orders which are the subject matter of the present petition. In this way, a consolidated claim was made by the petitioner before learned arbitrator, who is proceeding with the arbitration proceedings at Delhi. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable for appointment of an arbitrator for those disputes which are already sub-judice and pending consideration before learned arbitrator at Delhi. He further submitted that when the notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued vide Annexure P-11 dated 15.10.2023, total amount claimed was mentioned therein without specifying the purchase orders or work orders regarding which the petitioner intended to invoke arbitration. Although the petitioner proposed names of arbitrators in the notice but the respondent did not accept them. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. According to learned counsel for the petition