Gaurav Saxena vs Hello Verify India Private Limited

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010247832026
ARB.P. 969/2026
+
GAURAV SAXENA .....Petitioner
Through: Md. Amaan Afsar, Mr. Shashi Kant
Upadhyay, Mr. Akbar and Mr.
Santosh, Advs.
versus
HELLO VERIFY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT



1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to
as “ the A&C Act ”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the
Employment Agreement dated 04.02.2022 (hereinafter referred to as
”) executed between the parties, in order to adjudicate the
“ Agreement
disputes that have arisen between the parties.
2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent as General Manager
(Sales) pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement dated 04.02.2022. The
petitioner continued to render his services to the respondent and his last
working day with the respondent company was 06.09.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that upon cessation of his employment,
certain amounts towards his terminal dues remained outstanding and payable
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 1 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29

by the respondent. The petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 5,87,739/-, besides
interest and other reliefs, towards salary dues for the period from 01.08.2024
to 06.09.2024, client meeting expenses, interest, damages etc.
4. It is submitted that despite repeated requests and reminders, the
respondent company failed to clear the aforesaid alleged outstanding dues.
The petitioner thereafter issued a legal demand notice dated 22.03.2025
calling upon the respondent to discharge the amounts claimed by him. The
petitioner also instituted a recovery suit before the Dwarka Courts, South-
West District, Delhi, which came to be disposed of on 12.12.2025 with
return of the plaint.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a further legal notice dated
07.09.2025 alleging, inter alia , commission of offences of forgery and
cheating, to which the respondent issued its response on 12.09.2025.
6. Since the disputes between the parties continued to subsist, the
petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a notice dated
19.12.2025 under Section 21 of the A&C Act, calling upon the respondent to
appoint a Sole Arbitrator within 15 days of receipt thereof. The respondent,
however, failed to respond to the said notice or to appoint an arbitrator in
terms of the Agreement.
7. The Agreement between the parties contains an Arbitration Clause,
which reads as under:-
“21. Arbitration
You agree that the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement
shall be governed by the laws of India and all disputes under this
Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue for arbitration will be New Delhi.
The arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator appointed by
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 2 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29

the Company, and the award of the arbitrator shall be final and
binding upon you.”
8. I
t is evident from a bare perusal of the aforesaid clause that the parties
had agreed to resolution of their disputes through arbitration and had further
contemplated appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the respondent. The
petitioner having invoked the arbitration agreement by notice dated
19.12.2025 and the respondent having failed to act upon the agreed
appointment procedure, the present petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C
Act has been necessitated.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an
objection with regard to the service of the notice dated 19.12.2025 under
Section 21 of the A&C Act to the wrong address of the respondent
company.
10. However, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Adavya Projects (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Structurals (P) Ltd. , (2025) 9 SCC 686,
the said objection would not constitute an impediment to constitution of the
arbitral tribunal, particularly when the existence of the arbitration agreement
between the parties is not in dispute. The Court therein has, inter alia ,
observed as under:
“ 44. The Delhi High Court in Alupro Building Systems (P) Ltd. v. Ozone
Overseas (P) Ltd. [Alupro Building Systems (P) Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas (P)
Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228] allowed an application under Section 34
ACA against an award passed by an arbitrator who was unilaterally
appointed by the respondent therein, without issuing a notice to the petitioner
therein under Section 21 ACA. The High Court proceeded to delineate the
various functions served by a Section 21 notice as follows
:
(i) To inform the other party as to the claims, which will enable
them to accept or dispute the claims;
(ii) To enable the other party to point out if certain claims are time-
barred, barred by law, or untenable, or if there are counterclaims;
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 3 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29

(iii) For arriving at a consensus for appointment of arbitrators
under the arbitration agreement;
(iv) For parties to inform each other about their proposed
arbitrator, to enable the other party to raise any objections/issues
regarding qualification;
(v) To trigger the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 in case the
appointment procedure fails; and
(vi) To fix the date of commencement of arbitration for the purpose
of Section 43(1).
45. The decision in Alupro Building Systems has been relied on by the High
Court in its impugned order to hold that the notice under Section 21 is a
mandatory requirement before a person can be made party to arbitral
proceedings.
46. While we agree with the decision in Alupro Building Systems insofar as
holding that the notice under Section 21 is mandatory, unless the contract
provides otherwise, we do not agree with the conclusion that non-service of
such notice on a party nullifies the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction over him.
The purpose of the Section 21 notice is clear — by fixing the date of
commencement of arbitration, it enables the calculation of limitation and it is
a necessary precondition for filing an application under Section 11 ACA. The
other purposes served by such notice — of informing the respondent about
the claims, giving the respondent an opportunity to admit and contest claims
and raise counterclaims, and to object to proposed arbitrators — are only
incidental and secondary. We have already held that the contents of the
notice do not restrict the claims, and any objections regarding limitation and
maintainability can be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, and the ACA
provides mechanisms for challenging the appointment of arbitrators on
various grounds. Hence, while a Section 21 notice may perform these
functions, it is not the primary or only mechanism envisaged by the ACA.

”
11. Since the existence of the arbitration agreement is evident from the
Agreement and the disputes raised by the petitioner arise out of the said
Agreement, there is no impediment to constituting an arbitral tribunal for
adjudication of the disputes between the parties, as contemplated under the
A&C Act and in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in SBI
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning , (2024) 12 SCC 1 and
Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 &
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 4 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29

Stamp Act, 1899, In re , (2024) 6 SCC 1. The said legal position has also
been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v.
ASAP Fluids Private Limited & Anr. , (2025) 1 SCC 502 and Maharashtra
, 2026 SCC
State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. R Z Malpani
OnLine SC 553.
12. Further, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in
TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. , (2017) 8 SCC 377, Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. , (2020) 20 SCC 760 and
, 2019
Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited
SCC OnLine SC 547, the respondent cannot itself undertake the
appointment of an arbitrator in the facts of the present case. An independent
Sole Arbitrator would, therefore, be required to be appointed for
adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
, Advocate (Mob. +91 -
9990987000)
13. Accordingly, Mr. Divyansh Rathi
is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties arising out of the Employment Agreement dated 04.02.2022.
14. It is agreed that the learned Arbitrator would decide the jurisdictional
objections raised by the respondent at the very outset, before adjudicating
the disputes on merits.
15. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosures as
required under section 12 of the A&C Act, and in the event there is any
impediment to the appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to
file an appropriate application in this Court.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 5 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29

16. It is agreed between the parties that the arbitration shall take place

under the aegis of and as per the rules of Delhi International Arbitration
Centre (DIAC).
17. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator
on merits, in accordance with law.
18. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the contentions of the
parties.
19.
The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ ka



Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 969/2026 Page 6 of 6

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:04:29