ARB.P. 707/2025 $~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 707/2025 SUPERWAVE COMMUNICATION INFRASOLUTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Kakkar and Mr. Vinod Patidar, Advocates. versus SYNERGY LABS TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satyam Bhatia and Mr. Aman Madan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 08.09.2025 1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11 (5) and (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) for appointment of the Arbitrator. 2. Reply has been filed but the same is not record. Hard copy of the reply is handed over in Court and is taken on record, with the consent of the counsels for the parties. 3. Disputes having arisen between the parties in respect of supply of software and hardware on highways under the Purchase Order assigned by the Respondent to the Petitioner, Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration to the Respondent on 02.04.2025 under Clause 7 of Purchase Order dated 10.08.2023. As there was failure on part of the Respondent to appoint or consent to the Arbitrator, this petition was filed by the Petitioner. 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 22/09/2025 at 11:49:19 ARB.P. 707/2025 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the petition on the sole ground that the notice invoking arbitration is not in accordance with Section 21 of 1996 Act. The argument is that Petitioner has not spelt out the disputes and there is no reference to the arbitration clause and in support, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in DP Construction v. Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1410, more particularly, paragraph 24 thereof, which reads as follows:- “24. It is significant that despite raising claims and demanding specific amount with interest within one month from the non-applicant, the applicant has not referred to the arbitration clause i.e. clause 29 of the work order, at any place in the said legal notice. In the above quoted paragraph 11 of the notice also, there is no reference to the intent of the applicant to invoke arbitration, leave alone naming an arbitrator or calling upon the non-applicant to agree to appointment of a sole Arbitrator. In fact, all that the applicant has stated in the above quoted paragraph 11 of the notice, is that the applicant would be constrained to seek redressal by approaching the competent Court of Law. An attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant to contend that this ought to be read as invocation of arbitration clause, as there was dispute between the parties and there was an arbitration clause in existence.” 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court does not find merit in the objection raised. A bare perusal of the notice under Section 21 of 1996 Act shows that Petitioner has spelt out the cause and nature of the inter se disputes arising between the parties, including a reference to the legal notice dated 12.08.2024, sent earlier detailing the claims and the amount of damages claimed. There is a clear reference to Clause 7 of the Purchase Order, which is the arbitration clause and it is stated that if the Respondent does not refund the amount stated therein with interest, Petitioner will be constrained to take recourse to arbitration for adjudication of the disputes. The intent to refer the disputes to arbitration is clearly 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 22/09/2025 at 11:49:19 ARB.P. 707/2025 evident. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in DP Construction (supra) does not help the Respondent since in the said case, as a matter of fact, Petitioner had made no reference to the arbitration clause or appointment of the Sole Arbitrator, which is not the case here. Accordingly, this Court finds no impediment in appointing the Arbitrator, there being a clear intent of the Petitioner to take recourse to arbitration for adjudication of the disputes between the parties and the existence of the arbitration agreement being undisputed. 6. This petition is allowed directing Coordinator, Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of DIAC. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule under DIAC (Administrative Cost & Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. 7. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. 9. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 Ch 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 22/09/2025 at 11:49:19