Claims arising from separate work orders require separate arbitral references.

The petitioner was awarded a work order by the respondent for construction of RCC cable trenches for laying 66 KV cables at Park Serene Spacio, Sector 37D, Gurugram.

The petitioner claimed that, despite completion of the defect-liability period, the respondent had failed to release retention money of ₹76,103.

The work order contained an arbitration clause providing for settlement of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by the respondent’s Managing Director, with the arbitration proceedings to be held in New Delhi.

The petitioner had earlier initiated arbitration proceedings concerning multiple work orders.

In those proceedings, the learned sole arbitrator held that the reference was confined to Work Order No. 89 and that disputes arising from Work Order No. 197 required a separate arbitration.

The petitioner thereafter issued a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dated 30 March 2026, and filed the present petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from Work Order No. 197.

The respondent stated that it had no objection to the Court appointing a sole arbitrator.

Whether disputes arising from Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/PS/S37D/13/WO-197 constituted a separate arbitrable reference requiring appointment of a sole arbitrator?

Whether, in view of the arbitration agreement, the fresh invocation under Section 21, and the respondent’s consent, the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act?

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 appointment.

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

The arbitration clause in the work order required disputes to be referred to arbitration and contemplated appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondent’s Managing Director; however, the Court proceeded to appoint the arbitrator with the parties’ consent.

The arbitrator was also required to furnish the declaration contemplated under Section 12 of the Act.

The Court noted that the earlier arbitral reference was expressly limited to disputes arising from Work Order No. 89.

Since the learned sole arbitrator had held that claims arising from Work Order No. 197 could not be adjudicated in that proceeding and required a separate invocation, the petitioner’s fresh Section 21 notice validly initiated a distinct arbitral reference.

The existence of an arbitration agreement covering disputes arising from the work order was undisputed.

In addition, the respondent expressly stated that it had no objection to appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Court.

Accordingly, the statutory conditions for appointing an arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) were satisfied, and the Court referred the disputes concerning Work Order No. 197 to arbitration.

The disputes concerning Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/PS/S37D/13/WO-197 were referred to arbitration, and Mr. Kanwaljeet Arora, former District and Sessions Judge, 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 required to furnish a declaration under Section 12, the parties were directed to approach DIAC within two weeks, and all rights and contentions were left open for adjudication by the tribunal.