Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Retailer’s Nearly ₹4.97 Lakh Dispute After Infraestate Firm Fails To Appear Despite Service

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes with the respondent and claimed approximately ₹4,96,845.

The respondent was served with notice but neither appeared nor filed a reply despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The petitioner’s application was considered under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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

The appointed arbitrator must furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court also directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

The Court found that the respondent had been duly served, as supported by the affidavit of service and tracking details, but had chosen not to participate or file a reply.

Applying the limited Section 11 inquiry, the Court concluded that a valid and binding agreement existed between the parties and found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator.

It left questions of arbitrability and jurisdiction open for determination by the arbitrator and clarified that its observations were confined to the Section 11 petition.

The arbitration is to proceed under DIAC’s rules and aegis, with the arbitrator’s fees governed by DIAC’s fee schedule.

The petition was disposed of in those terms.