Mr. Arpit Dwivedi, Ms. Sakshi Kapoor and Mr. Manmeet Singh Nagpal, Advs.) v. AIR WORKS INDIA ENGINEERING PVT LTD A Company incorporated under the pr

.....Respondent (Through: Mr. Abhay Chitravanshi with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Advs. ) Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:12:51 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”), seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties, in terms of the Arbitration Clause 25(3) of the General Terms Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “GTA”) dated 13.06.2022. 2. It is seen that the reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed, which essentially raised certain objections with respect to the non- entitlement of the claims set up by the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the petition indicates that the parties entered and executed the GTA on 13.06.2022, wherein, the respondent undertook to provide Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (hereinafter referred to as “MRO”) services to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that during the subsistence of the GTA, owning to certain unforeseen circumstances, the only operational aircraft of the petitioner was grounded and remained in an Aircraft on Ground (hereinafter referred to as “AOG”) condition between

23.09.2023 and 15.10.2023. 4. According to the petitioner, during the said period, no MRO services were availed or rendered by the respondent, and subsequently, the respondent appears to have temporarily suspended its services under the GTA. Thereafter, on 01.05.2024, the respondent permanently suspended its services under the GTA Agreement, and vide notice dated 08.05.2024, the petitioner highlighted the arbitrary and unlawful conduct of the respondent. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:12:51 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

5. The petitioner, thereafter on 16.09.2024 issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause of 25(3) under GTA to resolve and adjudicate all disputes between the parties. 6. However, on 04.10.2024, the respondent refused to nominate its nominee arbitrator on the ground that there exists no dispute between the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. At this stage, the Court takes note of Clause 25(3) of the GTA, which reads as under:- The decision(s) of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and “3) Arbitration All disputes arising under this Agreement that remain 1) unresolved pursuant to Article 25.1 may, as an alternative to court proceedings, be referred by either Party to arbitral tribunal comprising of three (3) arbitrators. Each Party to the arbitration shall appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators thus appointed should appoint the third arbitrator who will act as a presiding arbitrator of the tribunal {together forming the" Arbitral Tribunal"). The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and/or any statutory re-enactment, amendment. or modifications thereof for the time being in force. 2) binding on both the Parties. 3) 4) this Agreement. The language of arbitration shall be English 5) 6) Any award or other decision of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be made by a majority of the arbitrators. In addition to making a final award, the Arbitral Tribunal shall be entitled to make interim, interlocutory or partial awards. .Any award may be enforced against the Parties of their assets wherever they may be found, or judgements upon the arbitration may be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof. Subject to a specific award of costs by the Arbitral Tribunal, each Party shall bear its own costs of the arbitration. The venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi, India. This Article 25 shall survive the termination or expiry of Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:03.05.2025 16:12:51 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 7) Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Party may before commencement of, during or after the termination of the arbitration proceedings. apply to any Court of competent jurisdiction for a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction, or other interim or conservatory relief, as necessary. Such application shall not be deemed to be an infringement or a waiver of the arbitration agreement herein and shall not affect the relevant powers reserved to the Arbitral Tribunal”

9. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning,1 while considering all earlier pronouncements including the Constitutional Bench decision of seven judges in the case of Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 2 has held that scope of inquiry at the stage of appointment of an Arbitrator is limited to the extent of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else. 10. It has unequivocally been held in paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd that observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn.,3 and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,4 that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would not apply after the decision of Re: Interplay. The abovenoted paragraph no.114 in the case of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd reads as under:- “114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage