Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Arbitration After Initial Tribunal Dismisses Mis-Clubbed Claims

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the procedural necessity of independent arbitral references for distinct work orders, ensuring that parties cannot bypass specific invocation requirements by clubbing unrelated disputes under a single reference. This decision clarifies the boundaries of an arbitrator's jurisdiction when faced with claims arising from multiple contracts not originally placed before the court or the appointing authority.

Justice Manoj Jain presided over the matter, where the petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator after a previous arbitral tribunal correctly excluded claims pertaining to separate work orders for being beyond the scope of the original reference.

Arbitrator Excludes Unrelated Claims

The dispute originated when the petitioner attempted to include claims from four different work orders in a single arbitration proceeding. The previously appointed arbitrator in Shri Sidhi Vinayak Infratech Private Limited V. M/S BPTP Ltd noted that the reference was limited to a specific work order and directed the petitioner to invoke separate arbitrations for the others. Consequently, the petitioner issued a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the back drop of the aforesaid, the Claims sought by the Claimant arising out of work order No. 104 dated 11.5.2017, Work Order No. 109 dated 28.10.2017 and Work order No. 197 dated 16.8.2013 are undeniably beyond the scope of the present arbitral reference, which is confined solely to disputes arising under the Work Order No. 89 dated 3.3.2015."

Upon hearing the parties, the respondent expressed no objection to the fresh appointment. The Court has following directions:

"i) The disputes between parties concerning said work order are referred to arbitration.

ii) Mr. Kanwaljeet Arora, former District and Sessions Judge [Mobile No.9910384733] is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the same.

iii) The arbitration will held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, New Delhi (DIAC) and would be governed by the Rules of DIAC. The fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule under DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator’s fees) Rules 2018.

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

v) All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

vi) The parties shall approach DIAC within two weeks from today."

Background

The petitioner was awarded the construction of RCC cable trenches at a project in Gurugram. The dispute arose when retention money amounting to Rs. 76,103/- was not released despite the completion of the defect liability period. The contract contained "Clause-U," which mandated amicable settlement followed by arbitration.

Initially, the petitioner approached the court in Shri Sidhi Vinayak Infratech Private Limited V. M/S Bptp Ltd, resulting in the appointment of an arbitrator. However, that tribunal allowed an application by the respondent, ruling that claims from three other work orders could not be adjudicated alongside the primary dispute. This led the petitioner to file the current petition under Section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Case Details:
Case No.: ARB.P. 931/2026
Case Title: Shri Sidhi Vinayak Infratech Private Limited V. M/S Bptp Ltd
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Mund, Mr. Vedant Mund, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saurabh Jain, Mr. Prayag Jain, Advocates.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 6635