Disputes arising under a separate work order require a distinct arbitral reference.

The petitioner was awarded the part-balance civil and finishing work for the basement at Park Serene Spacio, Sector-37D, Gurugram, under Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/PSS/S37D/17/WO-109. It claimed that, despite completion of the defect-liability period, the respondent had not released retention money of ₹1,09,888.

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

The petitioner had earlier obtained appointment of an arbitrator in ARB.P. 32/2025. During those proceedings, the learned arbitrator held that disputes arising from Work Order No. 109, along with other work orders, were beyond the scope of that reference, which was confined to Work Order No. 89. The petitioner was therefore directed to invoke separate arbitration proceedings for Work Order No. 109.

Pursuant to that order, the petitioner issued a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dated 30 March 2026.

The parties were also referred to mediation, but no settlement was reached.

During the hearing, the respondent stated that it had no objection to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Court.

Whether the disputes arising out of Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/PSS/S37D/17/WO-109 were required to be referred to arbitration under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether, in light of the earlier arbitral proceedings being confined to a different work order, a fresh arbitral reference could be made in respect of Work Order No. 109.

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator notwithstanding the contractual provision authorising the respondent’s Managing Director to make the appointment.

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 fails or is not acted upon.

Section 21 of the Act governs commencement of arbitral proceedings through a written request invoking arbitration.

The Court also applied the arbitration agreement contained in Clause S of the work order, which covered disputes relating to or arising out of the contract and provided for reference to a sole arbitrator.

The Court further required the appointed arbitrator to furnish the declaration contemplated by Section 12 of the Act concerning independence and impartiality.

The arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the petitioner’s claim for release of retention money arising from Work Order No. 109.

The earlier arbitral reference did not adjudicate or include disputes under that work order; rather, the learned arbitrator expressly held that Work Order No. 109 required a separate arbitration.

The petitioner consequently issued a fresh notice under Section 21, thereby properly invoking arbitration in respect of the present dispute.

Since the respondent expressly consented to the appointment of an arbitrator by the Court, and the arbitration agreement existed between the parties, the Court referred the disputes to arbitration and appointed an independent sole arbitrator.

The disputes arising out of Work Order No. BPTP/SSVIPL/PSS/S37D/17/WO-109 were referred to arbitration.

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, New Delhi, in accordance with the DIAC Rules, with fees determined under the applicable DIAC fee schedule.

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