Delhi High Court
Arbitration and MediationContract Law

Section 11 inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

M/S Day Night Furniture And Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Dlf Projects Ltd.

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Section 11 inquiry is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.. M/S Day Night Furniture And Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Dlf Projects Ltd.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator in disputes arising from a contract agreement dated 4 August 2021.

Source reference: p.1, para. 1

The parties agreed to first explore settlement through mediation and, if mediation failed, to refer the disputes to arbitration.

Source reference: p.1, paras. 2–5

The arbitration clause was contained in Clause 101 of the General Conditions of Contract.

Source reference: pp.2–3, para. 7

The Court noted that the parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Source reference: p.3, para. 8
02

Issues

Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, permitting the Court to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Source reference: p.2, para. 6; p.3, para. 8

Whether the parties’ disputes should first be referred to mediation and, if settlement failed, to arbitration.

Source reference: p.1, paras. 2–5; p.3, para. 9
03

Law Applied

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

Source reference: p.2, para. 6

Clause 101 of the parties’ contract provided for amicable settlement discussions followed by arbitration, and specified that the arbitration would be conducted by a sole arbitrator.

Source reference: pp.2–3, para. 7

The Court also directed that the arbitrator furnish the disclosures required by Section 12(2) of the Act.

Source reference: p.4, para. 10
04

Reasoning

The parties agreed to attempt mediation and also agreed that, if mediation failed, the disputes would proceed to arbitration.

Source reference: p.1, paras. 2–5

The Court identified Clause 101 as the contractual arbitration agreement and, applying the limited prima facie enquiry under Section 11, found no dispute regarding its validity or existence.

Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 6–8

It therefore appointed a sole arbitrator, while making the appointment operative after the mediation report recorded failure of settlement.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9
05

Holding

The Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan), directing them to appear on 13 October 2026 and allowing three weeks to explore settlement.

If mediation failed, Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, was appointed sole arbitrator, to enter upon the reference within three weeks of the mediation report recording failure.

Source reference: p.3, para. 9

The arbitration was directed to proceed under DIAC rules and fee schedule; the parties remained at liberty to raise their pleas before the arbitrator.

Source reference: p.4, paras. 10–13

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Source reference: p.4, para. 15
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S Day Night Furniture And Projects Pvt. Ltd.vsDlf Projects Ltd.

Delhi High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment