ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010149312026 + ARB.P. 638/2026 TARRUSH GUPTA AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Mr. Varun Chandiok, Ms. Riya Seth and Mr. Armaan Sharma, Advocates. versus M/S G M DIE CASTING INDUSTRIES AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Bhavika , Ms. Swastika Kumari and Mr. Prakhyat Sharma, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed dated 30.04.1983 which was superseded on 01.04.1992. 2. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of one Mr. Ajay Gupta, who was a partner in the Partnership Deed dated 30.04.1983 and 01.04.1992. 3. The relevant portions of the Partnership Deed dated 30.04.1983 and 01.04.1992 are extracted hereunder:- 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 2 of 7 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 3 of 7 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 4 of 7 4. The cause of action according to the petitioner is the rendition of accounts predicated on Clause 14 of the Partnership Deed dated 30.04.1983 and 01.04.1992. 5. It is stated that Mr. Ajay Gupta, father of the petitioner unfortunately left for his heavenly abode on 14.11.2009. The petitioner had instituted a suit bearing CS(COMM) 799/2023 before this Court. It transpires that the respondent nos.1.2, 3 and 4 had filed an application bearing no. I.A. 258/2024 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the said suit disputing the maintainability of the suit based on Section 8 of the Act. The relevant clause of the arbitration, based whereon the said application has filed is extracted hereunder:- “15. That in case any dispute at any time arises between the parties with respect to meaning or effect of any clause in this agreement or rights and liabilities of parties under this agreement, such question or dispute shall be referred to arbitration under Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, then in force”. 6. The said suit was disposed of while reserving the liberty to the petitioner to initiate arbitration under Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1992 by this Court on 29.01.2026. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 29.01.2026 are extracted hereunder:- “9. It is clear that there is no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration clauses. Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed dated 30.04.1983, as well as Clause 15 of the subsequent Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1992, unequivocally provide that any dispute arising between the partners in relation to the partnership, its affairs, or the rights and liabilities of the parties shall be referred to arbitration. 10. Moreover, careful reading of the Plaint shows that the entire dispute raised by the Plaintiffs flows directly from the partnership deeds - the reliefs sought, including rendition of accounts, settlement of partnership assets, determination of shares, and injunctions restraining dealing with partnership properties, arise out of and are intrinsically connected with the partnership arrangement. The subject matter of the present Suit is, therefore, squarely covered by the arbitration clauses contained in the partnership deeds. 10. Moreover, careful reading of the Plaint shows that the entire dispute raised by the Plaintiffs flows directly from the partnership deeds - the reliefs sought, including rendition of accounts, settlement of partnership assets, 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 5 of 7 determination of shares, and injunctions restraining dealing with partnership properties, arise out of and are intrinsically connected with the partnership arrangement. The subject matter of the present Suit is, therefore, squarely covered by the arbitration clauses contained in the partnership deeds. 11. The Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, (2003) 6 SCC 503, while holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to continue with the Suit once an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, has held as under: “14. This Court in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju [(2000) 4 SCC 539] has held that the language of Section 8 is peremptory in nature. Therefore, in cases where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Therefore, it is clear that if, as contended by a party in an agreement between the parties before the civil court, there is a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for the civil court to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. In the instant case the existence of an arbitral clause in the Agreement is accepted by both the parties as also by the courts below but the applicability thereof is disputed by the respondent and the said dispute is accepted by the courts below. Be that as it may, at the cost of repetition, we may again state that the existence of the arbitration clause is admitted. If that be so, in view of the mandatory language of Section 8 of the Act, the courts below ought to have referred the dispute to arbitration.” (Emphasis Supplied)” 12. This Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that the disputes raised in the Suit are arbitrable in nature. Once the conditions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are fulfilled, jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the Suit stands ousted. This Court cannot proceed to adjudicate the merits of disputes which the parties have consciously agreed to resolve through arbitration. Any contrary course would defeat the legislative mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which seeks to promote party autonomy and minimize judicial intervention.” 7. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Act based on arbitration Clause 15 under the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1992 on 18.02.2026. Despite lapse of more than 15 days, no response was received by the petitioner from the respondent, constraining 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 6 of 7 petitioner to file the present petition. 8. It is stated that all the respondents were served, however, it is only respondent no.2/Mr. Rajan Gupta, who has filed his objections. 9. Ms. Swastika Kumari, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Rajan Gupta, states that the objections to the present petition is primarily on two grounds: (i) that the claims sought are barred by limitation and; (ii) that the petitioner is not a party to the Partnership Deed and thus has no locus to invoke arbitration. 10. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in “In SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Krish Spinning: (2024) 12 SCC 1, this Court is not required to delve into the disputes which may have arisen between the parties and is only to satisfy itself as to the existence of an Arbitration clause in the agreement. Thus, the objections on limitation etc., of claims or any other issue on merits is concerned, the same can be dealt with by the Arbitral Tribunal. 11. So far as the second objection in respect of the locus of the petitioner is concerned, it would be relevant to appreciate Clause 14 of the Partnership Deed which is extracted hereunder:- “14. That in the event of death of any partner his/her spouse or legal heirs shall be admitted to the benefits of partnership.” 12. It is not denied that the petitioner was not admitted to the partnership under Clause 14, however, a simple reading of the said clause does indeed appear to give a locus to seek rendition of accounts from the remaining partners of the Partnership Firm. It is not disputed that the Partnership Firm has not been dissolved till date. Vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC predicated on the Section 8 of the Act, this Court had observed that the suit is not maintainable as the Partnership Deed contained a valid arbitration agreement and dismissed the suit. However, this Court provided liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings under 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 11:13:54 ARB.P. 638/2026 Page 7 of 7 Act. It is on that basis that the present petition was filed. 13. The mere fact that the respondent no.2 was not the one who had filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 will not make any difference inasmuch as no proceedings challenging the order dated 29.01.2026 was ever initiated by the respondent no.2 herein. 14. That apart, none of the other respondents, who had in fact filed the said application, have appeared before this Court till date though served. In that view of the matter, the second objection cannot be countenanced by this Court. 15. Having regard to the fact this Court in the previous litigations under CS(COMM) 799/2023 has upheld the fact that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and even today Ms. Swastika Kumari, learned counsel does not dispute that there indeed exists an arbitration agreement in Clause 15 of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.1992, the petition has to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, Mr. Jagjit Singh (Ph: 9810034684) is appointed as an Arbitrator. The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from date. 17. Let the copy of this order be sent to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre forthwith. 18. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Sumit 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 11:13:54