$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010903472025 + ARB.P. 1926/2025 DR SHONALI CHANDRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. SS Pandey, Mr. H S Tiwari, Mr. Roshan Kumar, Ms. Nandita Lal and Ms. Garima Singh, Advocates. versus PHYSICS WALLAH PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Aishna Jain, Mr. Aditya Maheshwari, Ms. Kratvi Kawdia, and Mr. Mohit Goel, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 15.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties under the Consultancy Agreement dated 24.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”). 2. It is stated that Petitioner being a renowned Doctor and professor was engaged by the Respondent inter alia for imparting lectures on Obstetrics and Gynaecology to the students availing the services of the Respondent. 3. It is stated that the disputes have arisen between the Parties as the Respondent has failed to pay the remuneration to the Petitioner as per the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45 terms and conditions stipulated under the Consultancy Agreement. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Clause 15.2.2 of the Consultancy Agreement contains an arbitration clause, according to which, disputes are to be resolved through arbitration. Pursuant to the said Clause, it is stated that the seat for the arbitration has been agreed to be Delhi. 5. A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was issued on 11.08.2025, invoking arbitration under the Consultancy Agreement. The said notice was replied to by the Respondent, whereby the Respondent denied their liabilities to pay the Petition. Therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition for the appointment of an arbitrator. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents have taken the following objections:- i. The Consultancy Agreement is not signed by the Respondent and the Consultancy Agreement is a forged document; and ii. This Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition in view of Clause 15.2.8 of the Consultancy Agreement. 7. So far as objection (i) is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the correspondences between the Petitioner and the Respondent reveal that the there were communications and written exchanges indicating that Petitioner was engaged as a consultant-cum-teacher by the Respondent, and that parties did enter into Consultancy Agreement. Such exchanges, in the opinion of this Court, also fulfil the requirements of Section 7(4)(b) and (c) of the Arbitration Act and accordingly, there does exist an Arbitration Agreement between the parties. 8. However, in so far as objection (ii) is concerned, this Court is in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45 agreement with the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the territorial jurisdiction with respect to the instant Petition lies in Uttar Pradesh. 9. The Clause 15.2 is being reproduced in its entirety:- “15.2. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Arbitration 15.2.1. All disputes, differences or disagreements arising out of, in connection with or in relation to this Lease Agreement including its interpretation, performance or termination, in the first instance shall be settled amicably through mutual discussions and negotiations between the officials of the Lessor and the Lessee. 15.2.2. If no settlement can be reached through mutual discussion and negotiations between the company and the consultant mentioned above within 30 days of the first written communication of such disputes, differences or disagreements from either Party to the other, then all such disputes, differences or disagreements shall be finally decided by arbitration on ad-hoc basis to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The seat of the arbitration shall be in New Delhi. 15.2.3 The arbitration shall take place before a sole arbitrator acceptable to the Parties. If the Parties fail to agree on a sole arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Act. 15.2.4 The arbitral award shall be rendered in English language. The arbitrators shall state reasons for their findings in writing and shall specify the basis for any damage or cost awarded. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the Parties. 15.2.5 This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect pending This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45 the award in such arbitration proceedings. 15.2.6 Nothing shall preclude either Party from seeking interim or permanent equitable or injunctive relief, or both, from the competent courts, having jurisdiction to grant relief on any disputes or differences arising from the Agreement. The pursuit of equitable or injunctive relief shall not be a waiver of the duty of the Parties to pursue any remedy (including monetary damages) the arbitration described in this Clause. 15.2.7 The costs and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne by the Parties in such manner as may be determined by the arbitrator. 15.2.8. This Agreement and the engagement of the Consultant hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India and subject to Clause 15.2.2 below, the Parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of New Delhi, India in respect of any legal action or proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement. 15.2.2. All disputes, controversies and differences of opinion arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or for the breach or for any alleged wrongful termination hereof which cannot be settled amicably by the Parties hereto shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator appointed mutually by the Parties hereto. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and statutory re-enactments or modifications thereof for the time being in force. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties. The seat, place and venue of arbitration shall be at Noida, U.P., India. The Parties shall continue to fulfil their obligations under this Agreement pending the final resolution of the dispute and the Parties shall not have the right to suspend their obligations under this This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45 Agreement by virtue of any dispute being referred to arbitration, unless this Agreement has been or stands terminated. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The Parties hereto submit to the arbitrator’s award and the award shall be final and enforceable in the competent court of law.” 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on Clause 15.2.2 which states that the seat of arbitration has been decided to be New Delhi, however, Clause 15.2.2 succeeds Clause 15.2.1 which deals with a “Lease Agreement”. It is apparent on the face of record that Lease is clearly not the subject-matter of the Consultancy Agreement. 11. So far as Clause 15.2.8 is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the said Clause is made subject to Clause 15.2.2, which is reproduced just below Clause 15.2.8. The said Clause 15.2.2, which succeeds Clause 15.2.8 states that the disputes have to be decided by arbitration, for which, the seat of arbitration shall be Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the disputes that have arisen between the Parties under the Consultancy Agreement, have to be adjudicated through arbitration, for which the seat of arbitration has specifically been conferred upon the Courts at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, under the said Consultancy Agreement. 13. This Court is, therefore, inclined to dispose of the present Petition on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the Respondent, the seat of arbitration, as agreed to, by the parties, lies in Noida, Uttar Pradesh and not New Delhi. 14. Liberty is granted to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to initiate This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45 such steps in accordance with the law for approaching the competent court of jurisdiction for appointment of an arbitrator. 15. In view of the above, the present Petition is disposed of. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 Prateek This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/09/2026 at 10:54:45