204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

ARB-250-2024 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 M/s V-Con Integrated Solutions Private Limited .... Petitioner Versus M/s Online Promotion Way ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (through V.C.) for Mr. Gagandeep Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

2. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 19.11.2025, the respondent was proceeded against ex parte and the following order was passed:-

“In pursuance of the order dated 19.08.2025, dasti summons were issued to the respondent at the new address.

The following report has been received from the Registry:-

“Dasti notice issued to the respondent received back with report that office was closed at the time of service and properties of firm Sh. Parikshit Sehgal, contacted on his mobile no. and he refused to receive summons. However, copy of summons has been sent to him through WhatsApp.”

In view of the above, since the respondent has refused to receive summons and has already been informed through WhatsApp, the respondent is hereby proceeded against ex parte.

To come up on 12.12.2025, for arguments.”

3. Even today, none has cause appearance on behalf of the respondent.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate has caused appearance through video conferencing on behalf of Mr. Gagandeep Geol, learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there was an agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent which contains a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 26. The said clause has been annexed with the present petition vide Annexure P-1 which provides that any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or in relation to the interpretation, application or effects with the agreement between the parties will be referred to Arbitration under the Act and any amendment thereof. He further submitted that when a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner has invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuing notice to the respondent under Section 21 of the Act vide Annexure P-3 dated 21.03.2024, but no response was received from the respondents in this regard. Therefore, the present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Prima facie, there exists a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 26 in the aforesaid agreement (Annexure P-1) which is reproduced as under:-

“26. Arbitration

26.1 The Parties hereby agree that any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or in relation to the interpretation, application or effects with this Agreement which cannot be resolved amicably, shall be conclusively resolved by arbitration under Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") and any amendments thereof.

26.2 The dispute shall be referred to Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by VISPL

26.3 The Place and seat of arbitration shall be Mohali, Punjab and language shall be English.

26.4 Pending the submission to arbitration and thereafter, till the tribunal renders its award or decision, the Parties, shall, except in the event of termination of this Agreement or in the event of any interim order/award is granted under the afore stated Act, continue to perform their obligations under this Agreement.

26.5 The Parties hereby agree that the Arbitral Award shall be final and binding and the Parties irrevocably waive their right to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any state court or other judicial authority, insofar as such waiver may be validly made. The arbitrator shall give a reasoned and speaking award in writing.

26.6 Th