ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010121202026 + ARB.P. 528/2026 GMM PFAUDLER LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Swapnil Srivastava and Mr. Jayesh Srivastava, Advocates. versus NUBERG ENGINEERING LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anand Prakash Dubey, Mr. Utsav Kumar and Ms. Medhavi Tyagi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner preferred the present petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Purchase Order dated 24.11.2023 bearing no.9570/4500016714 issued by the respondent to the petitioner. It is stated that the said Purchase Order was placed for an order for the manufacture and supply of an Aluminium Sulphate Reactor Agitator (Model MTID-15) including motor and accessories by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner issued an Order of Acceptance dated 04.12.2023 alongwith Proforma Invoice dated 01.12.2023 for the payment of first tranche of advance payment. Pursuant thereto, it is admitted that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs on 13.12.2023. 3. In the meanwhile, it appears that certain disputes had arisen in respect of the Material of Construction (MoC), however, by the communication dated 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22 ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 2 of 6 07.03.2024, the respondent is stated to have accepted the changes and acknowledged the revised timeline. It is stated by the petitioner that by May-June, 2024, the agitator assembly was fully manufactured and was ready for inspection and dispatch and further invoices were raised subsequently requesting the respondent to inspect and then subsequently release the payment. 4. As the matter stood thus, the respondent is stated to have issued an e-mail dated 27.08.2024 directing the petitioner to put all the activities on hold on the basis that the upstream contract of the respondent with the Ethiopian Chemical Industry Corporation having been terminated. The petitioner claims to have responded clarifying that the equipment i.e., the agitator was custom made and therefore, cannot be diverted or disposed of to some third party. Simultaneously, the petitioner sought payment of dues. 5. A demand notice dated 01.10.2024 seeking payment of Rs.45 Lakhs towards outstanding dues was also raised. 6. It is stated that on 15.05.2025, the respondent unilaterally terminated the Purchase Order based on the termination of the upstream contract. There was also a communication issued in the form of legal notice thereafter by the petitioner. Finally, vide the letter dated 23.12.2025, the petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It is stated that the respondent failed to concur for the appointment of an arbitrator. On the aforesaid factual matrix, the present petition has been filed. 7. The attention of this Court has been invited to the Purchase Order containing the arbitration clause i.e., Clause 18 which is extracted hereunder: “18. ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the lave of India. If at any time, any question, dispute, or difference whatsoever, shall aries between Nuberg and the Vendor in relation to or in connection with or arising out of this Contract, both parties agree to resolve the same by mutual 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22 ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 3 of 6 consultation. Failing resolution by mutual consultation within (60 days), either party may give to the other a notice in writing of the existence of such question(s)/dispute(s) /difference(s) and the same shall be referred and settled between the parties hereto by a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Nuberg in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended up to date. a) The arbitration shall sake take place in New Delhi. b) The language of arbitration shall be English. c) The arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties. d) The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally between the parties. e) The Governing Law will be the Laws of India.” 8. The legal notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act dated 23.12.2025 was issued by the petitioner, the relevant para whereof is extracted hereunder: “17. Hence, a clear dispute has arisen between Our Client and Nu berg due to your breach of obligations under the Captioned P.O. The Dispute Resolution Clause [Clause 18 of the Captioned P.O. contains the Commercial Terms and Conditions which contains an arbitration clause) is reproduced below for reference: "18. ARBITRTATION AND JURISDICTION This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. If any time, any question, dispute, or difference whatsoever, shall arise between Nuberg and the Vendor in relation to or in connection with or a rising out of this Contract, both parties agree to resolve the same by mutual consultation. Failing resolution by mutual consultation within (60 days), either party may give to the other a notice in writing of the existence of such question(s)/dispute(s) I difference(s)and the same shall be referred and settled between the parties hereto by a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Nuberg in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended up to date. a) The arbitration shall take place in New Delhi. b) The language of arbitration shall be English c) The arbitral award shall be finai and binding on the parties. d) The cost of arbitration shall be shored equally between the parties e) The Governing law will be the laws of India." Therefore, from a bare perusal of the aforesaid the terms of the PO, the applicable venue of arbitration venue will be New Delhi." 18. It is pertinent to note that several attempts were made under Clause 18 of the captioned P.O. to ainicably settle the dispute between the parties. On 23.05.2025, You issued an email dated 23.05.2025, wherein You proposed that 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22 ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 4 of 6 GMM's senior personnel visit Nuberg's office to "sit across the table and close the issue". Pursuant to the same, on 06.06.2025, GMM's Senior Manager (Sales), Mr. Chetan Tamar, personally visited your office and met with Mr. Sanjeev Chauhan to resolve the issue and seek confirmation regarding payment and lifting of the Goods. However, Nuberg failed to fulfill its payment obligations till date. Consequently, the dispute remains unresolved and cannot be settled amicably under Clause 18 of the Captioned P.O. 19. In view of the breach of the Captioned P.O. by Nuberg and in accordance with Clause 18 thereof, we hereby propose to appoint Mr. Nikhil Singhvi, Advocate empaneled with Delhi International Arbitration Centre, as the sole arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings. We call upon you to either accept this proposal or propose an alternate name to be appointed as the sole arbitrator.” 9. It is stated that by the time the response was received, the petition was already filed after expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice as referred above. 10. It is stated that the reply has been filed by the respondent. However, the same is not on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of the said reply of the respondent to the Bench. 11. It is relevant to note that amongst others, para 9 of the reply does not dispute that the Purchase Order did contain any Clause 18 for appointment of the sole arbitrator. The other paragraphs containing disputes on facts need not unnecessarily detain this Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, which held as under: "113. The scope of examination under Section 11(6-A) is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7. The examination of validity of the arbitration agreement is also limited to the requirement of formal validity such as the requirement that the agreement should be in writing. xxx xxx xxx 116. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, it was observed in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22 ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 5 of 6 1899, In re [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 1066] that the High Court and the Supreme Court at the stage of appointment of arbitrator shall examine the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not any other issues. The relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow: “220. The above extract indicates that the Supreme Court or High Court at the stage of the appointment of an arbitrator shall “examine the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and [Ed.: The words between two asterisks have been emphasised in original as well.] not other issues [Ed.: The words between two asterisks have been emphasised in original as well.] ”. These other issues not only pertain to the validity of the arbitration agreement, but also include any other issues which are a consequence of unnecessary judicial interference in the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the “other issues” also include examination and impounding of an unstamped instrument by the Referral Court at the Section 8 or Section 11 stage. The process of examination, impounding, and dealing with an unstamped instrument under the Stamp Act is not a time-bound process, and therefore does not align with the stated goal of the Arbitration Act to ensure expeditious and time-bound appointment of arbitrators.” (emphasis supplied) 117. In view of the observations made by this Court in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 : 2023 INSC 1066 , it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1] and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd. [NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 385] that the jurisdiction of the Referral Court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1] ." 12. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it is clear as crystal that all that this Court needs to satisfy itself is in respect of as to whether an arbitration clause indeed exists between the parties. Having regard to the fact that there is indeed an agreement for arbitration in clause 18 of the Purchase Order coupled with the 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22 ARB.P. 528/2026 Page 6 of 6 contents of para 9 of reply, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the parties are ad idem on the existence of an arbitration clause in the Purchase Order. For clarity, the contents of para 9 of the reply are extracted hereunder: “That without prejudice to the above, the Respondent submits that Clause 18 of the Purchase Order contains a specific procedure for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The Respondent reserves all rights and contentions to raise all disputes arising out of the interpretation, operation and implementation of the said clause.” 13. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. 14. Ms. Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa (Phone: 9818040158) is appointed as an Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be carried out under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court. 15. The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. 16. The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from date. 17. Let the copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DIAC as well as the learned Arbitrator forthwith. 18. Copy of the reply of the respondent handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 19. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J AUGUST 6, 2026 kct 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:22