Delhi High Court · 2026

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 883/2025 TRIDENT STEEL BUILDING SOLUTIONS .....Petitioner Through: versus M/S SAMRA LOGISTICS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amardeep Maini, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 14.01.2026 I.A. 33032/2025 (Application for restoration of the arbitration petition filed on behalf of the petitioner) 1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 for restoration of the Arbitration Petition No. 883/2025 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.12.2025. 2. For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the present application is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ARB.P. 883/2025 4. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [“the Act”] seeking an order to appoint an independent Arbitrator, to adjudicate the claims as set out in the petition. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 11:47:48

5. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner is Partnership Firm which deals in manufacture of prefab buildings. Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the Respondent No. 1 and are vicariously liable for the act and conduct of the firm. 6. Pursuant to negotiations held in February 2020, the parties entered into a commercial arrangement for supply, erection and civil work of a Pre-Engineered Building at Samra Logistic Park, Ludhiana. 7. The invoices as between the parties contain an arbitration clause which provides that all disputes shall be resolved by arbitration, with the Arbitrator to being appointed by the Petitioner, and the award being binding on both parties. The relevant extract of the Arbitration clause is produced as under: “In case of any dispute same shall be resolved by way of Arbitration & counciliation Act as amended up to date & Trident Steel Building Solutions have right to appoint an Arbitrator. Award passed by the Arbitrator Shall be binding on both parties. Jurisdiction will be Delhi Court.” 8. It is stated that the Petitioner duly supplied material, completed the erection and civil work, and raised invoices which were accepted by the Respondents. Despite part payments, the Respondents withheld a sum of ₹41,98,813/-, in breach of the agreed payment terms. 9. It is further stated that the Petitioner made requests through emails and telephonic communications for the release of the outstanding amount. However, the same remained unpaid. Resultantly, the Petitioner issued a notice dated 28.02.2025 invoking Arbitration under Section 21 of the Act. 10. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act has been fairly well This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 11:47:48 settled. This Court as well in the order dated 24.04.2025 in case of ARB.P. 145/2025 titled as Pradhaan Air Express (P) Ltd. v. Air Works India Engineering (P) Ltd1 has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. The Court held as under:- “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, 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 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., and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., 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 of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) 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 continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In Re: Interplay (supra).” 11. Ex-facie frivolity and dishonesty are the issues, which have been held to be within the scope of the Arbitral Tribunal which is 1 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3022 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 11:47:48 equally capable of deciding upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. While considering the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the case of Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd., however, has held that the referral Courts under Section 11 must not be misused by one party in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process. Few instances have been delineated such as, the adjudication of a non-existent and malafide claim through arbitration. The Court, however, in order to balance the limited scope of judicial interference of the referral Court with the interest of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, has held that the Arbitral Tribunal eventually may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Arbitral Tribunal finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other parties to the arbitration. 12. It is thus seen that the Supreme Court has deferred the adjudication of aspects relating to frivolous, non-existent and malafide claims from the referral stage till the arbitration proceedings eventually come to an end. The relevant extracts of Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. reads as under:- “20. As observed in Krish Spg. [SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg., (2024) 12 SCC 1 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 : 2024 INSC 532] , frivolity in litigation too is an aspect which the referral court should not decide at the stage of Section 11 as the arbitrator is equally, if not more, competent to adjudicate the same. 21. Before we conclude, we must clarify that the limited jurisdiction of the referral courts under Section 11 must not be misused by parties in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time consuming and costly arbitration process. This is possible in instances, including but not limited to, where the claimant canvasses the adjudication of non-existent and mala fide claims through arbitration. 22. With a view to balance the limited scope of judicial interference of the referral courts with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 11:47:48 caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration. Having said that, it is clarified that the aforesaid is not to be construed as a determination of the merits of the matter before us, which the Arbitral Tribunal will rightfully be equipped to determine.” 13. In view of the aforesaid, the scope at the stage of Section 11 proceedings is akin to the eye of the needle test and is limited to the extent of finding a prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing beyond it. The jurisdictional contours of the referral Court, as meticulously delineated under the 1996 Act and further crystallised through a consistent line of authoritative pronouncements by the Supreme Court, are unequivocally confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. These boundaries are not merely procedural safeguards but fundamental to upholding the autonomy of the arbitral process. Any transgression beyond this limited judicial threshold would not only contravene the legislative intent enshrined in Section 8 and Section 11 of the 1996 Act but also risk undermining the sanctity and efficiency of arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution. The referral Court must, therefore, exercise restraint and refrain from venturing into the merits of the dispute or adjudicating issues that fall squarely within the jurisdictional domain of the arbitral tribunal. It is thus seen that the scope of enquiry at the referral stage is conservative in nature. A similar view has also been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel”. 11. The parties are ad idem that in view of the fact that the value of claims being approximately Rs. 42 lakhs, the disputes be referred to arbitration, to be adjudicated by an Advocate. 12. Accordingly, Mr. Jayant Tripathi (Mob. No. 9891871186), is appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. 13. The learned sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act. 14. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may otherwise be agreed to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 11:47:48 between the parties and the learned sole Arbitrator. 15. The parties shall share the learned sole Arbitrator's fee and arbitral cost, equally. 16. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 17. Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy. Let the copy of the said order be sent to the learned sole Arbitrator through the electronic mode as well. 18. Accordingly, the present Petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms and directions. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 14, 2026/v/her