On mutual consent, disputes were referred to arbitration and pending Section 9 petitions treated as Section 17 applications.

Vanita Sood filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection against Today Realty Private Limited in respect of property no. A-270, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, measuring approximately 283.33 square yards.

The parties had entered into an Agreement for Sale-cum-Construction dated 13 July 2024, under which the petitioner was to receive 45% undivided ownership in the land, the entire second and third floors, terrace rights, parking space and driver-rest area, for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.21 crore, apart from construction costs.

She claimed to have paid Rs. 55 lakh, including Rs. 50 lakh to the respondent and Rs. 5 lakh to the respondent’s son at her request.

Further payments were contractually linked to the respondent clearing title issues and obtaining no-objection certificates from the legal heirs of Late Shri Jugal K. Sood.

The petitioner later learned that RFA No. 4/2023, concerning the title to the property, was pending before the Delhi High Court and alleged that this litigation had not been disclosed when the agreement was executed.

Pre-litigation mediation failed on 6 November 2025.

The connected petition, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) No. 320/2026, was filed by Today Realty Pvt. Ltd. against Vanita Sood. During the hearing, the parties consented to reference their disputes to arbitration.

1. Whether the disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration and a sole arbitrator appointed by consent.

2. Whether the pending Section 9 petitions and applications should, upon constitution of the arbitral tribunal, be treated as applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. Whether the parties’ claims, counterclaims, and objections concerning arbitrability or jurisdiction should be left open for determination by the arbitral tribunal.

The Court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the court to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings; Section 12(2), requiring the arbitrator to furnish the prescribed disclosure regarding independence and impartiality; and Section 17, under which the arbitral tribunal may grant interim measures after its constitution.

The Court further followed the principle that, where parties mutually consent to arbitration and appointment of an arbitrator, the disputes may be referred to a mutually agreed sole arbitrator, while objections relating to arbitrability and jurisdiction may be raised before and decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Since both sides agreed that their disputes should be adjudicated through arbitration, the Court considered appointment of a sole arbitrator to be appropriate in the interests of justice.

It appointed Mr. Neeru Vaid, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court, as the sole arbitrator, subject to the statutory disclosure under Section 12(2).

The Court directed that the arbitration be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and clarified that all substantive claims, counterclaims, and objections—including those concerning arbitrability and jurisdiction—would be considered independently by the arbitrator.

Because the arbitral tribunal was being constituted, the interim-relief proceedings under Section 9 were directed to be placed before the tribunal as applications under Section 17.

The arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference within three weeks, furnish the required Section 12(2) disclosure, and conduct the proceedings under the DIAC framework.

Upon constitution of the tribunal, the pending Section 9 petitions and applications would be treated as Section 17 applications.

All rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitions and pending applications were disposed of without any expression of opinion on the merits.