An undisputed arbitration agreement warrants appointment of a sole arbitrator.

The parties executed a lease deed dated 21 October 2022 for an 11-month term at monthly rent of ₹25 lakh. After the lease commenced on 1 October 2023, the respondent allegedly failed to pay rent and issued cheques that were dishonoured.

Under a settlement deed and addendum dated 5 May 2024, ₹1 crore of the ₹1.5 crore security deposit was to be adjusted against rent arrears, and the respondent was to furnish five undated cheques; the respondent allegedly failed to honour that arrangement.

The petitioner later adjusted the balance security deposit against arrears and received three further cheques for ₹25 lakh each, which were also dishonoured.

After its arbitration notice dated 7 January 2026 received no response, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

1. Whether the parties’ disputes under the lease deed should be referred to arbitration by appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the A&C Act

2. Whether Delhi was the designated seat of arbitration under the agreement

Section 11 of the A&C Act empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator in the circumstances applicable to the petition; Section 12 requires the appointed arbitrator to furnish the requisite disclosure to the parties.

Applying BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234, the Court treated the agreed place of arbitral proceedings—Delhi—as the designated seat.

The Court also relied on Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760; TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., (2017) 8 SCC 377; Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547; SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 INSC 532; and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666, as authorities supporting constitution of the arbitral tribunal in the circumstances before it.

The existence of the arbitration agreement was undisputed, and the Court found that it contemplated proceedings in Delhi.

Applying BGS SGS SOMA JV, it held Delhi to be the designated seat.

In light of the agreement and the authorities cited, the Court concluded that an arbitral tribunal should be constituted to adjudicate the parties’ disputes.

It left any preliminary objections concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction to the arbitrator and left the parties’ claims and counterclaims open for determination on the merits.

The arbitration is to proceed under the aegis of, and in accordance with the rules of, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre; the arbitrator is to furnish the disclosure required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

The respondent may raise preliminary objections on arbitrability or jurisdiction, and all claims, counterclaims and merits contentions were left open.