$~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010137842026 + ARB.P. 596/2026 GAIL INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Ms. Neetika Bajaj, Ms. Ridisha Sharma and Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Advs. versus SHREE VAISHANAVI ISPAT LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, Mr. Shivam, Mr. Satyam Sinha, Mr. Yashvardhan Vats and Ms. Tanisha Maheshwari, Advs. 2 # CNR No. DLHC010113682026 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 119/2026 GAIL INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Ms. Neetika Bajaj, Ms. Ridisha Sharma and Ms. Vasudha Chadha, Advs. versus SHREE VAISHANAVI ISPAT LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, Mr. Shivam, Mr. Satyam Sinha, Mr. Yashvardhan Vats and Ms. Tanisha Maheshwari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 13.08.2026 1. The instant petition is preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 by the Petitioner seeking 1 “the Act”, hereinafter Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:15.08.2026 00:31:40 Signature Not Verified appointment of a Sole Arbitrator with respect to disputes arising out of a Gas Sales Agreement dated 16.12.2021 executed between the parties for supply to the Respondent industrial units in West Bengal. 2. Under this agreement, the Respondent was required to lift the minimum stipulated quantity of gas, failing which Take-or-Pay2 charges were leviable and, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent stopped drawing gas with effect from 01.11.2022, resulting in claims towards charges and interest on delayed payment for Contract Years 2023, 2024 and 2025 aggregating to approximately Rs.14,39,33,231/-. 3. After exchanging of correspondence, the Petitioner on 19.12.2025 proposed resolution of the disputes through Conciliation Letter under Clause 13.6 of the agreement, whereafter the Respondent sought extension of time and on 19.01.2026, disputed the claims and sought re-conciliation. 4. The Petitioner thereafter invoked arbitration on 12.02.2026 and issued a corrigendum on 27.02.2026, incorporating the claims for Contract Year 2025, and subsequently instituted the present proceedings upon the parties failing to agree on the appointment of an Arbitrator. 5. The Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the invocation of arbitration was pre-mature, contending that Clause 13.6 provides for a mandatory multi-tier dispute resolution mechanism, requiring the Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:15.08.2026 00:31:40 Signature Not Verified parties first to undertake mutual discussions, then thereafter conciliation in accordance with the Gail (India) Limited Conciliation Rules, 2010 including constitution of the prescribed conciliator, before arbitration could validly be invoked, and that the Petitioner had not followed the said procedure prior to issuing the notice dated 12.02.2026. 6. During the pendency of the present proceedings, this Court vide order dated 21.05.2026 referred the parties to conciliation. However, no conciliation was arrived at. 7. The Respondent continues to maintain that the contractual pre- arbitral mechanism was not duly completed and seeks dismissal of the petition as pre-mature, whereas the Petitioner contends that the attempts at amicable resolution/conciliation have failed due to no proper response of the Respondent and that the disputes are now liable to be referred to Arbitrator. 8. It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement3. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a valid arbitration clause between the parties. 10. Accordingly, Mr. Ravindra Bhat, (Retd. Judge, Supreme Court 2 “TOP”, hereinafter 3 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:15.08.2026 00:31:40 Signature Not Verified of India), (Mob. No. 9818000160) is appointed as a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within two weeks from today. 11. The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within two weeks of entering reference. 12. The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. 13. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including objection as to arbitrability, jurisdiction or satisfaction of muti-tier dispute resolution mechanism before the learned Sole Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law. 14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present matters. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present order. 15. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Mr. Ravindra Bhat, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes including email. Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:15.08.2026 00:31:40 Signature Not Verified 16. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 119/2026 17. In view of the order passed in ARB.P. 596/2026, the present petition filed under Section 9 of the Act shall be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act and the same shall be considered as decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator upon entering into the reference. 18. The interim order shall continue to operate until the learned Arbitrator considers the application under Section 17. 19. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/gunn Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:15.08.2026 00:31:40