M/S Greentree Building Energy Private Limited vs Bureau Of Energy Efficiency,
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC010335362026
ARB.P. 1253/2026
+
M/S GREENTREE BUILDING
ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate along
with Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma,
Advocate.
versus
BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (" the A&C Act ") seeks appointment of a sole
arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the
parties out of and in relation to the Letter of Award dated 15.02.2024
bearing Work Order No. 10/01/RC/BEE/2022/7063, and the Memorandum
of Agreement / Service Agreement dated 29.02.2024 executed between the
parties.
2. The respondent/Bureau of Energy Efficiency issued a Request for
Proposal dated 06.12.2023 for hiring of an agency to conduct Refresher
Courses for Energy Auditors and Energy Managers. The bid submitted by
the petitioner came to be accepted, and the aforesaid Letter of Award dated
15.02.2024 was issued in favour of the petitioner for imparting refresher
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
training to approximately 2,000 candidates through workshops across the
country. The terms and conditions governing the engagement were
thereafter reduced into writing in the form of the Memorandum of
Agreement / Service Agreement dated 29.02.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that its performance was impeded on
account of the failure of the respondent to hand over a functional portal, the
candidate database, registration / payment verification and certification
related approval/instructions, as a result whereof the petitioner was
constrained to deploy its own manpower and technical resources for setting
up an alternate portal. The contract period came to be extended by the
respondent, first upto 14.05.2025 vide letter dated 02.04.2025, and thereafter
upto 01.10.2025 vide letter dated 11.07.2025.
4. It is stated that the petitioner trained 636 candidates, as against the
milestone requirement of 600 candidates, and thereby achieved Milestone-I;
it accordingly raised Tax Invoice No. 25262075/01/081 dated 06.06.2025
for a sum of Rs. 46,11,204/- (inclusive of IGST), being 30% of the total
contract value of Rs. 1,53,70,680/-. According to the petitioner, only a sum
of Rs. 15,53,350/- came to be released on 15.01.2026.
5. By e-mail dated 28.01.2026, the respondent forwarded the particulars
of the said payment, whereunder, as against the invoiced sum of Rs.
46,11,204/-, an amount of Rs. 44,19,071/- was reckoned as payable, from
the said amount, deductions of Rs. 11,52,801/- (in respect of six workshops,
on account of an alleged shortfall in the stipulated minimum of 25
candidates) and Rs. 15,37,068/- (towards an alleged "10% maximum
penalty" on the total contract value) were effected, leaving a sum of Rs.
17,29,202/- as having been passed for payment, and the sum of Rs.
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
15,53,350/- was released therefrom after statutory deductions towards TDS
and GST-TDS. The petitioner disputes the aforesaid deductions, as being
unilateral, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the agreement. A further
sum of Rs. 5,14,918/-, claimed under Pro-Forma Invoice No. PI/26-
27/00073 dated 21.05.2026 in respect of the balance 67 candidates under the
same Work Order, is also stated to be outstanding.
6. The respondent, in its reply dated 23.04.2026 to the notice invoking
arbitration, has controverted the aforesaid claims. It is the stand of the
respondent that the petitioner persistently failed to execute the work in
accordance with the agreed milestones and timelines, despite
communications dated 01.05.2024, 10.10.2024 and 07.02.2025, and that the
deductions effected from the invoice were justified in terms of the
contractual framework governing the parties.
7. The arbitration agreement between the parties is contained in Clause
11.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement / Service Agreement dated
29.02.2024, which reads as under:
"11.4. Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction
11.4.1. This Agreement and the engagement of the
Consultant hereunder shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of India and subject to Clause
11.4.2 below, the Parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts at New Delhi, India in respect of any legal
action or proceedings arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement.
11.4.2. All disputes, controversies and differences of
opinion arising out of or in connection with this Agreement
or for the breach or for any alleged wrongful termination
hereof which cannot be settled amicably by the Parties
hereto shall be resolved by a Sole Arbitrator appointed by
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
BEE. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and statutory re-enactments or modifications thereof for the
time being in force.
11.4.3. The decision of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and
binding on the Parties. The seat, place and venue of
arbitration shall be at New Delhi, India. ... The arbitration
proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.
The Parties hereto submit to the Sole Arbitrator’s award
and the award shall be final and enforceable in the
competent court of law."
8. The existence and validity of the aforesaid arbitration agreement is
not in dispute. The seat, place and venue of arbitration having been agreed
to be at New Delhi, this Court is possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition.
9. The petitioner issued a notice dated 01.04.2026 under Sections 11 and
21 of the A&C Act, invoking the aforesaid arbitration agreement, and
calling upon the respondent to concur in the appointment of an independent
and impartial sole arbitrator within a period of 30 days. Although the
respondent has responded to the said notice vide reply dated 23.04.2026, it
has not concurred in the appointment of an arbitrator. The pre-conditions for
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act
are, therefore, satisfied. Pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2026, notice was
issued to the respondent. An affidavit of service has been filed. Despite
service, none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, and no
reply to the petition has been filed.
10. In the notice invoking arbitration, as also in the present petition, the
petitioner has pointed out that the mechanism contemplated in Clause 11.4.2
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
i.e., resolution of disputes by "a Sole Arbitrator appointed by BEE" is
incapable of being acted upon. The said contention is well founded. It is
well settled that a party which is itself interested in the outcome of the
dispute cannot be permitted to unilaterally appoint the sole arbitrator, and
that a person who is himself ineligible to act as an arbitrator cannot
nominate another person as an arbitrator (see TRF Ltd. v. Energo
Engineering Projects Ltd. , (2017) 8 SCC 377; Perkins Eastman Architects
DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. , (2020) 20 SCC 760). The said position has
since been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-
MCML (JV) , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219, wherein it has been held that an
appointment process which permits one party to unilaterally appoint a sole
arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and
impartiality of the arbitrator, and is contrary to the principle of equal
treatment of parties enshrined in Section 18 of the A&C Act.
11. The unenforceability of the appointment mechanism, however, does
not impinge upon the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement
itself. The unequivocal intention of the parties to have their disputes
resolved by arbitration remains. In these circumstances, the appointment
procedure agreed upon between the parties must be treated as having failed,
thereby enabling this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of
the A&C Act.
12. Insofar as the objections raised by the respondent on merits are
concerned, including as regards the alleged non-performance and delay
attributable to the petitioner, the justifiability of the deductions effected
from the invoice, and the entitlement of the petitioner to the amounts
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
claimed; it is well settled that the scope of enquiry at the stage of Section 11
of the A&C Act is extremely narrow, and is confined to an examination as
to the existence of an arbitration agreement (see In Re: Interplay between
Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 , (2024) 6 SCC 1; SBI General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning , (2024) 11 SCC 41; NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra
Ltd. , (2023) 9 SCC 385). Such issues, being matters falling within the
domain of the arbitral tribunal, are not liable to be gone into at this stage.
13. In view of the foregoing, the disputes between the parties arising out
of the Letter of Award dated 15.02.2024 bearing Work Order No.
10/01/RC/BEE/2022/7063 and the Memorandum of Agreement / Service
Agreement dated 29.02.2024, are liable to be referred to arbitration, and a
Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Court.
14. Accordingly, Ms. Manini Brar, Advocate, Advocate (Mobile No. +91
9205591340) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties.
15. The respondent shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as
regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the Sole
Arbitrator in accordance with law.
16. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings subject to the parties furnishing disclosure as required under
Section 12 of the A&C Act.
17. Let arbitration take place under the aegis of and as per the rules of the
Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
18. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16
Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law.
19. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case.
20. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
SACHIN DATTA, J
nb
OCTOBER 16, 2026/
ARB. P. 1253/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
21:59:16