Krishiv Poly Products Llp vs M/S Mdp Enterprises & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC011056832025
+ ARB.P. 2137/2025
KRISHIV POLY PRODUCTS LLP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avneesh Arputham and
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advs.

versus

M/S MDP ENTERPRISES & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Mordhwaj, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 15.10.2026

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised a
preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable as it is filed
based on invoices which are not signed or accepted by the
Respondent. He further submits that the Petitioner, in the suit for
1
recovery filed by it, contended before the learned Trial Court that the
invoices were not signed by either party and therefore, they did not
constitute a valid arbitration agreement.

2. However, it also appears from the record that it was the
Respondent who placed reliance upon the said invoices to contend that
they contained an arbitration clause and accordingly, the suit was not
maintainable.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 2137/2025 Page 1 of 5


Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:18

3. In that view of the matter, by judgment dated 21.08.2023, the
learned Trial Court referred the matter for arbitration and rightly
opined as follows:

“8. According to the Plaintiff, since these invoices do not bear the
signature of any person on behalf of the Defendants, it cannot be
said that the parties were ad-idem on the terms and conditions
contained in the invoices including arbitration clause and
therefore, the said arbitration clause is not legally binding clause.
The Court would have found some merit in this contention, had it
come from the mouth of the Defendants. It is unfathomable to find
that the Plaintiff, who has raised these invoice in respect of the
material supplied by it to the Defendants, is disputing itself the
terms and conditions contained in these invoices including
arbitration clause saying that these are not binding upon the
parties. If that be so, it can easily be held that the material
reflected in this invoice was never delivered upon the Defendants
as these do not bear any acknowledgement in this regard from the
side of the Defendants and that would demolish the entire case of
the Plaintiff.”

4. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the Petitioner before
this Court and subsequently, the matter travelled to the Supreme
Court. Before the Supreme Court, the Respondent filed its Counter
Affidavit, whereby it accepted the existence of an arbitration
agreement in the invoices and a purchase order dated 18.05.2017, as
follows:

“3. In addition to the invoices dated 20.05.2017 and 15.06.2017,
the Respondent had also issued a Purchase Order dated
18.05.2017, which likewise contained a valid arbitration clause
under the caption “Jurisdiction for Arbitration/Dispute”. These
transactional documents—exchanged, relied upon, and acted
upon—clearly reflect a mutual intention to arbitrate disputes. The
existence of a written arbitration agreement in both invoices and
the Purchase Order containing express arbitration clause such that

1
CS(Comm.) 362/2022
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 2137/2025 Page 2 of 5


Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:18

it cannot be said that there was any specific intention Not to
arbitrate. Rather, it is amply clear that there was an arbitration
clause and ought to be given effect to in consonance with well—
settled law. Thus, Ld. Trial Court and the High Court have rightly
given effect to the express arbitration clause between the parties.”

5. In view of the foregoing, a party cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate.


6. It is now well settled that an arbitration agreement can be in any
form; the only thing to be ascertained is that parties have agreed to
2
refer the matter to arbitration .

7. It is also settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section
11 of the Act, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima
facie existence of an arbitration agreement, nothing more and nothing
less. Only if parties are able to demonstrate non-existence of a valid
arbitration agreement, should a court refrain from appointment of an
3
Arbitrator .

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the invoices prima facie
contains a valid arbitration agreement, as follows:

“ Invoice dated 20.05.2017

VAT Declaration: Terms & Conditions:-1.Cenvat Credit of 4%
Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) is not Admissible on this invoice
2. All the disputes will be referred to the Arbitration to be held at
delhi by an arbitrator appointed by supplier to which the buyer

2
Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur, (1980) 4 SCC 556; order dated 28th November, 2023 in
Concrete Additives and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. S.N. Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.
7858/2023
3
Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 502; SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Krish Spg., (2024) 12 SCC 1; Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 &
Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 2137/2025 Page 3 of 5


Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:18

shall have no obejection & Decision of the Arbirator shall be final
& binding on the Parties & cost of such arbitration proceesings
shall be borne by the Unsuccessful Party. Other Condition mention
P.T.O.”

“ Invoice dated 15.06.2017

VAT Declaration: Terms & Conditions:-1. Cenvat Credit of 4%
Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) is not Admissible on this invoice
2. All the disputes will be referred to the Arbitration to be held at
delhi by an arbitrator appointed by supplier to which the buyer
shall have no obejection & Decision of the Arbirator shall be final
& binding on the Parties & cost of such arbitration proceesings
shall be borne by the Unsuccessful Party. Other Condition mention
P.T.O.”


9. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no
impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator.


10. Accordingly, Ms. Rajni Anand, Advocate, (Mob. No.
9891593401) is appointed as a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator
shall enter upon the reference within four weeks from today.

11. The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration
proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required
under Section 12(2) of the Act within three weeks of entering
reference.

12. The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of
Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). The learned
Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees
maintained by the DIAC.
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 2137/2025 Page 4 of 5


Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:18

13. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including but not
limited to objections as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the
learned Sole Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with
law.

14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11(6) of the
Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes
independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any
observations contained in the present order.

15. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Ms.
Rajni Anand, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes
including email.

16. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above
terms.


OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026/at




Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 2137/2025 Page 5 of 5


Signed By:ANUBHAV
TRIPATHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:18