01Facts
Srex Power India Private Limited (“SPIPL”) sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning disputes under a work contract dated 1 March 2019 and an addendum dated 2 May 2019.
pp. 1–3The contract provided for arbitration, with New Delhi as the seat. SPIPL had invoked arbitration by notice dated 18 December 2025; the parties did not reach an amicable resolution in mediation ordered by the Court.
pp. 1–3ASF Insignia SEZ Private Limited (“ASF”) separately filed a petition under Section 9. ASF stated that it had no objection to appointment of an arbitrator, reserved its rights and contentions, and requested that its Section 9 petition be treated as an application under Section 17 for the arbitral tribunal to decide.
pp. 3–402Issues
i.1. Whether the disputes under the work contract should be referred to arbitration and a sole arbitrator appointed.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether ASF’s Section 9 petition should be treated as an application under Section 17 for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provide for court appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure does not result in appointment.
pp. 1–3Section 9 concerns interim measures granted by a court, while Section 17 concerns interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal.
pp. 1–3The parties’ contract required arbitration of disputes, provided for a mutually acceptable sole arbitrator, and designated New Delhi as the seat.
pp. 1–3The Court cited no precedent and did not determine the substantive requirements for relief under Section 17.
Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11Section 21Section 9Section 17Section 12
04Reasoning
The arbitration clause covered disputes arising out of or connected with the contract, and mediation had produced no settlement.
pp. 3–5ASF did not oppose appointment of an arbitrator, while expressly reserving its objections and other rights for the arbitral proceedings.
pp. 3–5In light of the parties’ positions, the Court referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator.
pp. 3–5ASF’s request to have its Section 9 petition treated as a Section 17 application was accepted, leaving that application for the tribunal to consider.
pp. 3–505Holding
The Court disposed of both petitions, referred the contract disputes to arbitration, and appointed Justice G. S. Sistani (Retd.) as sole arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees governed by the applicable DIAC rules.
p. 4ASF’s Section 9 petition was directed to be treated as an application under Section 17 and placed before the tribunal for expeditious disposal.
pp. 4–5All parties’ rights and contentions—including arbitrability, preliminary objections, counterclaims, and the merits—were left open.
p. 4Original Court PDF
M/S Srex Power India Private LimitedvsM/S Asf Insignia Sez Private Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
