ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010092862026 + ARB.P. 423/2026 & I.A. 7231/2026 SUPERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASOLUTIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Sahil Kakkar and Ms. Anshika Juneja, Advocates. versus SAR TELEVENTURE LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Astha Gumber and Ms. Swati Malladi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the Parties under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “MoU”) executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the Petition are that the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into the MoU for the purpose of jointly undertaking a government infrastructure project for “Design, Supply, Installation, Testing, Commissioning and Operation & Maintenance of Advanced Traffic Management System on Delhi to Agra Section of NH-19 on EPC mode”. 3. Clause 9 of the MoU contains an arbitration clause which is being reproduced 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08 ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 2 of 6 “9. Dispute Resolution Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this MOU shall be resolved through mutual consultation and negotiation. If the dispute remains unresolved, it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that disputes have arisen between the Parties on the ground that the Respondent has failed to perform its contractual obligations under the MoU. It is pertinent to mention that the MoU was entered into between the Parties in the State of Haryana. Since the Parties had decided to get their disputes adjudicated through arbitration, a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent on 26.05.2025 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that disputes have arisen between the Parties under the MoU. 5. When the case first came up for hearing on 16.03.2026, a query was posed by this Court to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since arbitration clause does not mention the seat of arbitration, the office of the Respondent is not in Delhi and the construction of road was to be done from Delhi to Agra, how would this Court have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 6. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application being IA. 7231/2026 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the petition wherein it was specifically stated that since the construction of road was to commence from Delhi and certain obligations were to be performed in Delhi, a part of cause of action does arise in Delhi and therefore, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. In view of the said submission made by the Petitioner, this Court issued notice in the petition on 19.03.2026. 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08 ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 3 of 6 7. Notice has been duly served on the Respondent. Ms. Astha Gumber, learned Counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of the Respondent. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed a short affidavit stating categorically that as per the Official Publication titled “State/UT-wise Details of National Highways as on 30.06.2026” issued by the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as “NHAI”), the NH- 19 does not pass through Delhi. It is stated that the averment made by the Petitioner in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC that a portion of construction of road of NH-19 was to begin from Delhi is not correct. It is the case of the Respondent that no part of cause of action concerning the project, which is the subject matter of the MoU, has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. It is stated that “Delhi to Agra Section of NH-19” does not establish that NH-19 traverses Delhi or that any part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. 9. A copy of Official Publication titled “State/UT-wise Details of National Highways as on 30.06.2026” issued by the NHAI has also been filed by the Respondent along with the affidavit. A perusal of the said Official Publication reveals that NH-19 passes through Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal but it does not touch Delhi. The said Official Notification indicates that only National Highway Nos. 9, 44, 48, 148A, 248BB, 709B, 344M, 148AE, 148NA, 344N, 344P and NE3 passes through Delhi. 10. In response to the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Exphar Sa v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688 and more particularly Paragraph No.9 of the said Judgment 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08 ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 4 of 6 “9. Besides, when an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as pleaded by the initiator of the impugned proceedings are true. The submission in order to succeed must show that granted those facts the court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law. In rejecting a plaint on the ground of jurisdiction, the Division Bench should have taken the allegations contained in the plaint to be correct. However, the Division Bench examined the written statement filed by the respondents in which it was claimed that the goods were not at all sold within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and also that Respondent 2 did not carry on business within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Having recorded the appellants' objections to these factual statements by the respondents, surprisingly the Division Bench said: “Admittedly, the goods are being traded outside India and not being traded in India and as such there is no question of infringement of trade mark within the territorial limits of any court in India what to say of Delhi.” 11. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the principal contract was entered into between the Petitioner and the Indian Highways Management Company (IHMCL) in Delhi, the tax invoices have been raised in Delhi and the tax invoices state that the same is subject to Delhi’s jurisdiction only. 12. It is well settled that an Arbitration Agreement is juridically independent from the underlying contract in which it is contained. The Arbitration Agreement reflects the intention of the Parties to distinguish the underlying contract which captures the substantive rights and obligations of the Parties, from an arbitration agreement which provides a procedural framework to resolve the disputes arising out of the underlying contract. 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08 ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 5 of 6 13. The Apex Court in Ravi Ranjan Developers (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568 has observed as under: “26. Of course, under Section 11(6), an application for appointment of an Arbitrator necessarily has to be moved in the High Court, irrespective of whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to decide a suit in respect of the subject matter of arbitration and irrespective of whether the High Court at all has original jurisdiction to entertain and decide suits. As such, the definition of Court in Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act would not be applicable in the case of a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act to appoint an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal. 27. At the same time, an application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. 28. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent.” 14. Thus, the law is well settled that in the absence of the Arbitration Agreement providing the juridical seat, the Court cannot proceed under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act violating the principles of the CPC. In such a case, the question of territorial jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act is to be determined with reference to Sections 16 to 20 of the Code of 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08 ARB.P. 423/2026 Page 6 of 6 Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, only the Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the disputes between the parties can entertain a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act and appoint an arbitrator. 15. In the instant case, the Arbitration Clause does not indicate the seat of the arbitration. Additionally, materials, which have been placed before this Court, do not indicate that any portion of the road of NH-19, on which the work was to be done, to be in Delhi. Merely because the nomenclature of the project is “Delhi to Agra Section of NH-19” will not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court as the said road does not traverse Delhi. The Official Publication titled “State/UT-wise Details of National Highways as on 30.06.2026” issued by the NHAI also shows that no part of NH-19 is geographically placed in Delhi. Therefore, the reliance placed upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Exphar Sa (supra) cannot be accepted. Just because the Petitioner in the Petition has made an averment that a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi and, therefore, this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, is not sufficient. 16. In view of the above, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any, for lack of territorial jurisdiction. 17. It is open for the Petitioner to approach the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 07, 2026 S. Zakir 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 13/08/2026 at 10:59:08