Mr. Ashish Khorana, Advocate v. UNION OF INDIA

ARB.P. 1593/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~78 and 96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 78 + ARB.P. 1593/2025 MARVEL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Khorana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC along with Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Director, APO. 96 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 354/2025 MARVEL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Khorana, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC along with Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Director, APO. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 26.09.2025 I.A. 24308/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. ARB.P. 1593/2025 3. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking 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 06/10/2025 at 13:49:19 ARB.P. 1593/2025 Page 2 of 4 appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 4. Issue notice. 5. Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned CGSC accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. 6. Disputes have arisen between the parties pertaining to a contract dated 09.05.2025 for supply of Tea CTC 500 gms and 200 gms, respectively. Broadly understood, the disputes are in relation to rejection of the samples tendered by the Petitioner in different lots for testing. As the contract contains arbitration clause, Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration on 19.08.2025, however, despite passage of 30 days from the receipt of the notice, Respondent did not consent to the appointment of the Arbitrator. 7. Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that as per the arbitration agreement, Petitioner was required to take recourse to bilateral discussions before invoking the remedy of arbitration and in this context alludes to clause 15 of Part I and clause 3 of Part III of the contract, however, the same was not done and therefore, the present petition is premature. 8. Mr. Ashish Khorana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, draws the attention of the Court to Document No. 5 filed with the petition, which, according to him, reflects that Petitioner had approached the Respondent for a dialogue and discussion, consequent to which meeting was also held but there was no fruitful result. It is submitted that the goods in question are perishable in nature and have a limited shelf life and thus if the Petitioner waits indefinitely for discussions, huge financial loss will be caused and the stock will be rendered unfit for consumption. 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 06/10/2025 at 13:49:19 ARB.P. 1593/2025 Page 3 of 4 9. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 10. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to existence of the arbitration clause in the contract dated 09.05.2025. The objection that Petitioner did not take recourse to pre-reference bilateral discussions is belied by the documents on record, which indicate that Petitioner had approached the Respondent for discussion and amicable settlement of the issues, but the meeting did not yield any result. Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that looking at the nature of the goods involved in the matter i.e., tea leaves, it is not feasible for the Petitioner to wait indefinitely for settlement talks to materialise. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, this Court finds no impediment in appointing the Arbitrator, since existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. 11. Accordingly, Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Advocate (Mobile No. 9811113432) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’). Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule under DIAC (Administrative Cost & Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules 2018. 12. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 14. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 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 06/10/2025 at 13:49:19 ARB.P. 1593/2025 Page 4 of 4 O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 354/2025 15. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 9 of 1996 Act seeking interim reliefs. 16. Mr. Khorana, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that since Arbitrator has been appointed by the Court, direction be issued to the learned Arbitrator to treat this petition as an application under Section 17 of 1996 Act and consider the interim reliefs sought. 17. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of requesting the learned Arbitrator to treat this petition as an application under Section 17 of 1996 Act for interim reliefs, as expeditiously as possible, after entering upon reference, considering the urgent nature of reliefs sought. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 18. Registry shall transmit the digital records of the case to the learned Arbitrator. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/RW