Delhi High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

A prima facie valid arbitration agreement warrants appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.

Gd Goenka Pvt Ltd vs Gn Education Society & Ors.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A prima facie valid arbitration agreement warrants appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.. Gd Goenka Pvt Ltd vs Gn Education Society  & Ors.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

GD Goenka Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from an Intellectual Property License Agreement and an Education Services Agreement, both dated 8 September 2020

Source reference: p. 1

The agreements contained arbitration clauses, with the IP License Agreement providing for a sole arbitrator and the ESA providing for a three-member tribunal

Source reference: pp. 2–3

The parties agreed to first attempt mediation and, if it failed, to refer the disputes to arbitration; they did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement

Source reference: pp. 1–2
02

Issues

Whether the disputes should first be referred to mediation, as the parties agreed

Source reference: p. 1

Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act where the parties accepted the existence of a valid arbitration agreement

Source reference: pp. 3–4
03

Law Applied

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

Source reference: p. 4

The arbitration clauses in the parties’ agreements provided for arbitration of unresolved disputes after a 30-business-day negotiation period; the IP License Agreement specified a sole arbitrator, while the ESA provided for a three-member tribunal

Source reference: pp. 2–3

The order also required the appointed arbitrator to furnish the disclosure contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Act

Source reference: p. 4
04

Reasoning

The parties were ad idem on referring the matter to mediation and, if settlement was unsuccessful, to arbitration; the Court recorded that there was no dispute about the existence of a valid arbitration agreement

Source reference: pp. 1–2

Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found no impediment to appointing an arbitrator

Source reference: p. 4

It left questions including arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation for determination by the arbitrator, and clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the disputes

Source reference: pp. 4–5
05

Holding

The Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan), directing them to appear on 6 October 2026 and allowing three weeks to explore settlement

If mediation failed, Mr. Abhay Sahai, Advocate, was appointed Sole Arbitrator, to enter upon the reference within three weeks of the mediation report recording failure

Source reference: p. 4

The arbitration is to proceed under the aegis of DIAC, with fees as per its Schedule of Fees; the petition was disposed of accordingly

Source reference: pp. 4–5
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Gd Goenka Pvt LtdvsGn Education Society & Ors.

Delhi High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment