M/S Cannis Lupus Services India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Socyio Marketing Solutions Pvt Ltd

Court
Delhi High Court

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment pronounced on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010334082026
ARB.P. 1240/2026
+
M/S CANNIS LUPUS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Agarwal and Mr. Koustubh
Desai, Advs. (through v/c)
versus

M/S SOCYIO MARKETING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishabh Dubey and Mr. Rishabh
Malhotra, Advs.
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 an independent Sole Arbitrator
for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties under
and in relation to the Brand Agreement dated 19.12.2025 (hereinafter
referred to as “ the Agreement ”).
2. The petitioner, M/s Cannis Lupus Services India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged
in the business of pet care products and allied services under the brand name
“Fur Ball Story”. The respondent, M/s Socyio Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
is engaged in the business of influencer marketing and digital marketing
solutions. The parties entered into the Agreement dated 19.12.2025,
whereby the respondent was engaged to conceptualise, manage and execute
influencer marketing campaigns for the petitioner company.
ARB.P. 1240/2026 Page 1 of 5


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:39:20

3. Clause 12 of the Agreement incorporates the arbitration agreement
between the parties and provides that any dispute, difference or question
arising out of the Agreement shall first be settled amicably between the
parties and, failing such settlement, shall be referred to arbitration. The place
of arbitration has been agreed to be Delhi. Clause 12 of the said Agreement
reads as under:
“Any dispute, difference, or question arising out of this
agreement shall be settled amicably between the parties,
failing which the same shall be referred to arbitration under
the Indian Arbitration Act, and the place of arbitration shall
be Delhi.”
4. Disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to the
performance of their respective contractual obligations. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent failed to perform the agreed influencer
marketing services, including the agreed influencer collaborations, and
deviated from the agreed scope of work. The petitioner also alleges that the
respondent made unauthorised representations to influencers and third
parties, resulting in financial loss and reputational harm to the petitioner.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner terminated the Agreement vide email
dated 31.01.2026 and sought refund of the ‘mismanaged balance’ by the
respondent. The respondent, vide its reply dated 01.02.2026, accepted the
termination and stated that it would refund the petitioner's dues after due
calculation. The petitioner, thereafter, issued a legal notice dated 17.02.2026
seeking resolution of the disputes, however, the disputes remained
unresolved.
6. Consequently, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement
contained in Clause 12 by way of notice dated 28.04.2026 under Section 21
ARB.P. 1240/2026 Page 2 of 5


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:39:20

of the A&C Act and called upon the respondent to mutually agree upon and
appoint an independent arbitrator within fifteen days from receipt thereof.
7. The respondent submitted a reply dated 15.05.2026. It is pertinent to
note that while the respondent disputed the petitioner's allegations on merits
and sought to raise its own claims arising out of the Agreement, it did not
dispute the execution of the Agreement or the existence, validity or
applicability of Clause 12 containing the arbitration agreement.
8. Despite the invocation of arbitration, the parties could not arrive at a
consensus regarding the appointment of an arbitrator. The agreed procedure
for constitution of the arbitral tribunal has, therefore, failed, occasioning the
filing of the present petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.
9. The existence of the arbitration agreement is evident from a bare
perusal of Clause 12 of the Agreement. The disputes raised by the parties
arise out of and in connection with the Agreement and are, therefore, prima
facie , referable to arbitration. The pre-arbitration requirement of an amicable
settlement having failed, and the parties having failed to mutually appoint an
arbitrator despite invocation of the arbitration agreement, the occasion for
constitution of the arbitral tribunal has arisen.
10. At this stage, this Court is required to undertake the limited
examination contemplated under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The existence
of a valid arbitration agreement being apparent from the Agreement, and
there being no impediment to reference of the disputes to arbitration, the
petition merits consideration.
11. Since the existence of the arbitration clause is evident from a bare
perusal of the agreement, there is no impediment to constituting an arbitral
ARB.P. 1240/2026 Page 3 of 5


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:39:20

tribunal for adjudicating the disputes between the parties, as mandated in
terms of the judgments of Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Krish Spinning , (2024) 12 SCC 1 and Interplay Between Arbitration
Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re , (2024)
6 SCC 1. The said legal position has also been subsequently reiterated and
followed by the Supreme Court in Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP
Fluids Private Limited & Anr. , (2025) 1 SCC 502 and Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. R Z Malpani , 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 553.
12. Further, in view of the principles laid down by 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 Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited ,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an
independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
13. Accordingly, Mr. Divyansh Rathi , Advocate (Mob.
9990987000), is
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences
between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Brand
Agreement dated 19.12.2025.
14. 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.
ARB.P. 1240/2026 Page 4 of 5


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:39:20

15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.



SACHIN DATTA, J
/at/ka
OCTOBER 16, 2026
ARB.P. 1240/2026 Page 5 of 5


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:16.10.2026
20:39:20