$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010452572026 + CM(M) 2092/2026, CM APPL. 65110/2026 & CM APPL. 65111/2026 M/S GOLDHOMZ CONSULTING & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishal Khanna and Ms. Anjali, Adv. (through VC) versus M/S PRESIDENCY INFRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. Through the present petition, the petitioners/respondents impugn the order dated 10.07.2026 in arbitration proceedings titled “M/S Presidency Infraheights Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Goldhomz Consulting & Ors.” passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator (“Arbitral Tribunal”). 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners herein are parties to the arbitration invoked by the respondent/claimant, which is being conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) and presently remains pending. 3. At the first date of the arbitration i.e., 07.03.2026, the learned Arbitral Tribunal directed the respondent to file its statement of claim and the petitioners to file their respective statement of defence. A perusal of 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 24/09/2026 at 10:47:11 record reveals that the statement of claim was to be filed by the respondent on or before 20.04.2026 and the statement of defence was to be filed by the petitioners on or before 01.06.2026. 4. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed its statement of claim within the stipulated timeline, however, the petitioners failed to file their statement of defence. Yet, at the next date i.e., 10.07.2026, the learned Arbitral Tribunal vide the impugned order, granted one last and final opportunity to the petitioners to file their statement of defence subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus: “7. The order dated 07.03.2026 records the categorical undertaking of both parties that no further time would be sought for filing of pleadings. The Claimant has abided by the said undertaking. The Respondent has failed to do so. Ordinarily, this would warrant striking off the Respondent’s right to file the Statement of Defence. However, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted to the Respondent to file its Statement of Defence within 4 weeks from today, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the Claimant within the same period. The Claimant shall thereafter have two weeks to file its Rejoinder. 8. It is made clear that in the event the Statement of Defence is not filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, or the costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) are not paid to the Claimant within the said period, the right of the Respondent to file the Statement of Defence shall stand automatically struck off, without any further reference to this Tribunal.” 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent of the imposition of cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the statement of claim and the order dated 07.03.2026 were not served upon the petitioners. It is further submitted that the email relied upon by the respondent for the service of the statement of claim did not contain the statement of claim but 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 24/09/2026 at 10:47:11 instead contained an unrelated attachment pertaining to a High Court proceeding. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has dealt in depth with the contentions of the petitioners mentioned hereinabove. 9. Further perusal makes it clear that the respondent duly shared the statement of claim to the petitioners on the email addresses namely, “info@goldhomz.com” and “gaurav@goldhomz.com”, that were mentioned in the memo of parties in ARB.P. 310/2021 titled “M/S Presidency Infraheight Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Goldhomz Consulting Through: Its Partners & Ors.”, pursuant to which the underlying arbitration came to be initiated. It is also evident that the notice of the first date of arbitration i.e., 07.03.2026 was shared by the DIAC on the aforementioned emails. Pertinently, the order dated 07.03.2026 was passed in the presence of Mr. Abhishek Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “4. The Tribunal has examined the record in this regard. The email by which the Claimant shared the copy of the Statement of Claim shows that, amongst the recipients, the email IDs “info@goldhomz.com” and “gaurav@goldhomz.com” were included. The same two email IDs find mention in the Memo of Parties in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, pursuant to which this arbitration came to be initiated and the Tribunal was appointed. The notice for the first date of arbitration being 07.03.2026 was also shared by DIAC on the same email IDs pursuant to which the Respondents had entered their appearance on the said date. 5. The Tribunal has further verified the email by which the order dated 07.03.2026 was circulated to the parties and finds that the same two email 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 24/09/2026 at 10:47:11 IDs were recipients thereof as well. Moreso, the order dated 07.03.2026 was passed in the presence of Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. who represented the Respondents. 6. In view of the above, the submission on behalf of the Respondent that the Statement of Claim and the order dated 07.03.2026 were not received does not inspire confidence and is accordingly rejected.” 10. It is no longer res integra that the scope of interference in arbitration proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely narrow and must be exercised with due caution and circumspection. 11. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the contentions of the petitioners are devoid of merit and accordingly, no indulgence can be granted by this Court to the petitioners as the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition, along with pending applications, stands dismissed. AJAY DIGPAUL, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/AS/as 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 24/09/2026 at 10:47:11