Disputes arising from separate work orders require separate arbitral references.

The petitioner was awarded work relating to external plaster and MS railing at the respondent’s Group Housing Project, Park Serene Spacio, Gurgaon, under Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/S37D/17/WO-104.

The petitioner raised claims towards additional external plastering, escalation, extra work for cleaning and repainting of railing, and retention money.

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

The petitioner had previously approached the Court in ARB.P. 32/2025, pursuant to which an arbitrator was appointed.

During those proceedings, the arbitrator held that claims arising from Work Order No. 104, among other work orders, fell outside the scope of the earlier reference, which was confined to Work Order No. 89, and directed the petitioner to invoke separate arbitration proceedings.

The petitioner accordingly issued a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 30 March 2026, and filed the present petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Whether a fresh arbitral reference was required for disputes arising out of Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/S37D/17/WO-104, since those disputes had been excluded from the earlier arbitral reference.

Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes arising from the said work order.

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 mechanism has not resulted in appointment or has otherwise failed.

Section 21 of the Act governs commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request for reference to arbitration.

The Court also gave effect to the arbitration agreement contained in Clause T of the work order, which required disputes to be referred to arbitration after unsuccessful negotiations and provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator.

The arbitrator’s appointment was directed to comply with Section 12 of the Act concerning disclosure and independence of the arbitrator.

The earlier arbitral reference was expressly confined to disputes arising from Work Order No. 89, and the learned arbitrator had held that claims under Work Order No. 104 could not be adjudicated in those proceedings.

Consequently, the petitioner was required to invoke a separate arbitration for the present disputes.

The petitioner complied with this requirement by issuing a fresh notice under Section 21 and filing the present petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6).

Since the respondent raised no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator, and the parties’ arbitration agreement covered the disputes in question, the Court referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed an independent former judicial officer as sole arbitrator.

The disputes arising out of Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/S37D/17/WO-104 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 as per the applicable DIAC schedule.

The arbitrator was required to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act, all rights and contentions of the parties were left open, and the parties were directed to approach DIAC within two weeks.