$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 976/2026 M/S SILVER SQUARE HOTELS P LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A.K. Mata, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. M.M. Singh and Mr. S.K. Pal, Advocates. versus POORVA SANSKRITIK KENDRA (PSK) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir and Ms. Ayushi Mishra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 10.07.2026 O R D E R 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the A&C Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The disputes between the parties have arisen out of an Agreement dated 24.11.2023 to Operate, Manage and Maintain Hospitality Facilities at Poorva Sanskritik Kendra (PSK), Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. 3. The said Agreement dated 24.11.2023, contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:- 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 14/07/2026 at 11:07:47 4. During the course of hearing, it is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appointment procedure prescribed in the Arbitration Clause is in the nature of a ‘unilateral appointment mechanism’ and as such, the said procedure is not in consonance with the A&C Act. Consequently, it is requested that an independent Sole Arbitrator be appointed in the present matter to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 5. It transpires, during the course of hearing, that, DSIIDC exercises a modicum of control over the respondent. In the circumstances, appointment procedure which contemplates appointment of Arbitrator by the respondent itself, from the said panel, would not be in consonance with the dicta laid down in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO- MCML (JV) (2025) 4 SCC 641. 6. It also transpires that although a ‘Dispute Redressal Committee’ has been belatedly constituted by the respondent, the dispute between the parties has been festering for quite some time and the same is urgently required to be adjudicated in accordance with law. The legal position is well settled that recourse to pre-arbitral dispute resolution mechanisms are to be construed as ‘directory’, not ‘mandatory’. In this regard, reference may be made to the dicta laid down in Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. v. South Western Railways 7. In the circumstances, after some hearing, it is agreed by respective counsel for the parties that a sole arbitrator be appointed in these proceedings to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. In terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms , 2024:DHC:7801 and Orix Corporation India Ltd. v. Peters Surgical India Pvt. Ltd., 2026:DHC:4109. 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 14/07/2026 at 11:07:47 Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Kirit Javali, Advocate (Mobile No. +91 9810518044) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 9. The respondent shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the Sole Arbitrator in accordance with law. 10. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to the parties furnishing disclosure as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act. 11. Let arbitration take place under the aegis of and as per the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). 12. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law. 13. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this court on the merits of the case. 14. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 15. Order dasti. SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 10, 2026/at/ss 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 14/07/2026 at 11:07:47