ARB.P. 387/2025 p. 1 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 387/2025 E-NETSPIDER INDIA (FORMALLY KNOW AS NETSPIDER INDIA) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Ms. Shilpa Chauhan, Ms. Pankhuri Nehra and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advocates. versus DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE- GNCTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manashwy Jha, Panel Counsel, (Civil), GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 21.05.2025 1. This is a petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. Petitioner avers that on 20.02.2019, Respondent floated a tender for digitization of documents at Sub-Registrar Offices across Delhi and being a successful bidder, a formal Contract was executed between the parties on 08.07.2019, incorporating terms and conditions, including payment milestones etc. The Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause 14 for resolution of disputes arising out of the Agreement. 3. Petitioner avers that it successfully completed the contracted work as also additional assignments directed by the Respondent, however, Respondent failed to release balance 10% payments and refund of the security deposit, leading to the Petitioner invoking the Arbitration Clause after exhausting the pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism but Respondent failed to respond and having no other option, 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:07 ARB.P. 387/2025 p. 2 approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, does not dispute the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, the scope of examination by the referral Court is limited to examining the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and whether the petition under Section 11(6) of 1996 Act is barred by limitation. It is not the Respondent’s case that the petition is time barred. Once the existence of the Arbitration Agreement is undisputed, there can be no impediment in appointing an Arbitrator in consonance with Clause 14 of the Agreement. 5. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Advocate (Mobile No. 9999890553), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’) and as per its Rules. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be as per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. 6. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. 7. 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 to be raised and decided by the learned Arbitrator. It will be open to the Respondent to file its counter claim, if any. 8. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 21, 2025/YA 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 30/06/2025 at 23:45:07