A fresh arbitrator may be appointed for disputes excluded from an earlier arbitral reference.

The petitioner was awarded Work Order No. BPTP/SF/PSS/37D/13/WO-49 for construction of a D.G. Room at the respondent’s Park Serene Spacio project in Gurugram.

Disputes arose concerning deductions towards plain cement concrete, RMC laying charges, and retention money, aggregating to approximately ₹14,80,059.

The work order contained an arbitration clause providing for reference to a sole arbitrator appointed by the respondent’s Managing Director, with New Delhi as the seat/place of arbitration.

The petitioner had earlier obtained appointment of an arbitrator in ARB.P. 33/2025. However, that arbitrator held that the claims relating to work orders other than Work Order No. BPTP/SSF/S37D/PSS/14/WO-88 were beyond the scope of the existing reference.

The petitioner thereafter issued a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dated 1 April 2026, and filed the present petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from Work Order No. BPTP/SF/PSS/37D/13/WO-49.

The respondent stated that it had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Court.

Whether the disputes arising out of Work Order No. BPTP/SF/PSS/37D/13/WO-49 were required to be referred to arbitration under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether a fresh arbitral reference was permissible after the earlier arbitrator had held that claims arising from other work orders fell outside the scope of the previous reference.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator in view of the respondent’s consent and absence of objection.

The Court applied Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empower the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in constitution of the tribunal.

It also applied Section 21 of the Act concerning commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

The Court relied on the arbitration agreement contained in Clause R of the work order, which covered disputes arising out of or relating to the contract and provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator.

The appointment was additionally directed to be governed by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre Rules, with the arbitrator required to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act.

The Court found that the disputes concerning Work Order No. BPTP/SF/PSS/37D/13/WO-49 fell within the contractual arbitration clause.

The prior arbitral proceedings did not determine these disputes on their merits; rather, the earlier arbitrator expressly held that claims arising from work orders other than Work Order No. 88 were beyond the scope of that reference and left the petitioner free to pursue an appropriate remedy.

The petitioner consequently invoked arbitration afresh by issuing a Section 21 notice.

Since the respondent expressly stated that it had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator, and both parties consented to the proposed course, the Court referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed an independent sole arbitrator.

Ms. Manya Dudeja, Advocate, was appointed as the sole arbitrator.

The arbitration was directed to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre in accordance with its Rules, with fees fixed under the applicable DIAC fee schedule.

The arbitrator was directed to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open, and the parties were directed to approach DIAC within two weeks.