Arb.P. 325/2022 Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: March 14, 2022

Decided on: March 25, 2022

+

ARB.P. 325/2022

FOOMILL PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

Represented by:

Mr.Rajiv Kr.Choudhary, Advocate

with Mr.Manash Barman, Advocate.

Versus

AFFLE (INDIA) LTD.

.... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr.Kapil Madan, Advocate with

Ms.Ramya Verma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ARB.P. 325/2022

1.

By this petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for

resolving the disputes in relation to the software development arising out of

the agreement dated 29^th July 2021 between the parties and costs.

2.

According to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent entered

into a Master Service Agreement on 29^th July 2021. After the start of the

project, the petitioner raised concerns due to the delay on the part of the

respondent. On 3^rd December 2021, the petitioner wrote an email to the

respondent to resolve all differences amicably by dialogue. On 6^th December

2021, the respondent informed the petitioner that there is an ‘expectation

mismatch’ and therefore, the ‘project is put on hold’. The respondent

introduced a new person for communication with the petitioner and showed

no intent of resolving the issues flagged by the petitioner. Hence, on 8^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001059

Arb.P. 325/2022 Page 2 of 6

February 2022, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent invoking

arbitration. The respondent replied to the legal notice of the petitioner on

13^th February 2022 stating that there was no arbitration agreement between

the parties.

3.

Clause 11 of the Master Service Agreement dated 29^th July 2021

between the parties reads as under:-

“11.Jurisdiction, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

4. Clause 11 of the Agreement dated 29^th July 2021 does not provide that

the parties agreed to refer their disputes for resolution through arbitration

though the heading of Clause 11 mentions the words ‘Arbitration & Dispute

Resolution’. On the basis of the heading of the Clause 11 noting the word

‘Arbitration’, the petitioner claims resolution of disputes arising between the

parties through arbitration.

5. The issue whether the use of word ‘Arbitration’ in the heading of an

Agreement would entail existence of an arbitration agreement was dealt by

this Court in the decision reported as (2014) 210 DLT 714 Avant Garde

Clean Room & Engg. Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ind Swift Limited. This Court

held:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001059

Arb.P. 325/2022 Page 3 of 6

Court at Hyderabad.”

enforceable in terms of Section 11 of the Act.”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001059

Arb.P. 325/2022 Page 4 of 6

expression, „if any‟.

the courts………‟.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001059

Arb.P. 325/2022 Page 5 of 6

exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in the city of Delhi.‟

6. In view of the decisions referred above, it is clear that mere use of the

word ‘Arbitration’ in the heading in the Clause 11 of the Agreement between

the parties in the present proceedings would not lead to the inference that

there exists an agreement between the parties seeking resolution of disputes

thr