1 $-19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1129 /2025 Date of Decision : 19 .09 .2025 IN THE M ATER OF: INDO AUTO TECH LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE M R. M ANOJ M OHANTY HAVING ITS OFICE AT X-32, FIRST FLOOR, OKHLA PHASE -II, NEW DELHI - 110020 ..... PETITIONER Through: M r. Rakesh Kumar, M s. Preti Kashyap, M r. Ankit Sharma and M r. Pulkit M ehrotra , Advocates. Versus GOVT OF INDIA INTEGRATED HQ OF M OD ARM Y M ASTER GEN OF SUSTENANCE BRANCH OS -5(CV W ING) ROOM NO. 422A, D-I W ING, SENA BHAW AN, NEW DELHI -110011 .... RESPONDENT Through: M r. Vikas Jain and M r. Hardik Jayal, Advocates. HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUM AR KAURAV JUDGEM ENT PURUS HAINDRA KUM AR KAURAV , J. (ORAL) The present petition has ben filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) , seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, 2 to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. In pursuance to a request for proposal which was open ed on 15 .12.2016 by t he respondent, bids were called upon for supplying, installing of various machines, equipment at the site of Respondent . The petitioner on 31.10.2017 was found to be L1 bidder; and acordingly, the Contract dated 31.10.2017 was also executed betwen the pa rties. 3. As per the case set up by the petitioner, pursu ant to the said Contract , FRPSOLFDWLRQVDURVHGXULQJWKHWUL to reasons attributable to the respondent, and the former has ben asked to extened the tenure o f the bank guarante furnished earlier, even after the petitioner having invested an amount in excess of Rs.9 Crores . Thus, the petitioner has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator. 4. The aforesaid submissions, on mertis, are strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and he contends that the ground reality is otherwise. He, however, does not dispute that Clau se 7.1 of the Contract provides for an arbitration. 5. Clause 7.1 1 of Contract dated 31.10.2017 is extracted as under: - ³7.1 Arbitration 7. 1.1 Arbitration: If a dispute arises between the Purchaser and the Suplier and it does not get resolved throughmutual discusions, the parties may agree for arbitration. M OD/CFAs should prepare a panel of arbitrators for selection by the Defence Secretar y /CFA's who apoint an arbitrator, whose decisions taken after due consideration of factors brought out by both parties are considered final. The option of aproaching M inistry of Law for apointment of Arbitrator can also be exercised. Services Headquart ers have the power to apoint Arbitrators within their delegated financial powers. The standard Arbitration clauses 3 are given in Forms DPM -7, DPM -8 and DPM -9. 7.1.2 Apointment of Arbitrators through Court: There may be situations when either party aproa ches a court of law for apointing an independent arbitrator. Purchase oficers must consult the legal Advisor (Defence) and Government counsel in al cases of arbitration." 6. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act has been fairly well settled. This Court in Pradhaan Air Express Pvt Ltd v. Air W orks India Enginering Pvt Ltd 1, as well, has extensively dealt with the scope of interference at the stage of Section 11. Furthermore, this Court, recentl y, in Axis Finance Limited Vs. M r. Agam Ishwar Trimbak 2 has held that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act has been limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agrement. Further, it was also reiterated that the Obje ctions relating to the arbitrability of disputes are not to be entertained by a referal Court acting under Section 8 or 11 of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision reads as under: - 19.In In Re: Interplay , the Supreme Court confined the analysis under Section 1 of the Act to the existence of an arbitration agrement and under Section 8 of the Act to the existence and validity of an arbitration