ARB.P. 360/2026 $~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011099972025 + ARB.P. 360/2026 SYED HASAN AHMAD .....Petitioner Through: None. versus M/S EMBEE SOFTWARE PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Ms. Payal Chandra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 23.09.2026 I.A. 5194/2026 1. This application is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 25 days in re-filing the petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 25 days in re-filing the petition is condoned. 3. Application stands disposed of. I.A. 25683/2026 4. This application is filed on behalf of the Respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 11days in filing reply. 5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 11 days in filing reply is condoned. Reply is taken on record. 6. Application stands disposed 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 29/09/2026 at 10:48:00 ARB.P. 360/2026 ARB.P. 360/2026 7. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in connection with Employment Agreement dated 15.01.2021. 8. Reply is being filed on behalf of the Respondent raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction. Based on the reply filed, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the Employment Agreement contains Clause 10.7 which is Dispute Resolution clause and sub-Clause (c) thereof stipulates that the place of arbitration shall be Mumbai. Additionally, Clause 10.9 which deals with Governing Law provides that subject to Clause 10.7, Courts of Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the two clauses, this Court cannot entertain the present petition and appoint the Arbitrator. 9. The matter has been called twice. There was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner on the first call and none appears on the second call. Order dated 18.09.2026 reflects that even on that date there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner and Court adjourned the matter for today, making it clear that if there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner on the next date, petition will be considered on merits. 10. After hearing counsel for the Respondent and on perusal of Clause 10.7(c) pertaining to ‘Dispute Resolution’ and Clause 10.9 pertaining to ‘Governing Law’, Court finds merit in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Clause 10.7(c) stipulates “The place of arbitration shall be Mumbai” and Clause 10.9 provides “Subject to Clause 10.7, courts 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 29/09/2026 at 10:48:00 ARB.P. 360/2026 Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction”. Petitioner has not filed a rejoinder to traverse the preliminary objection and has consciously chosen not to prosecute the petition. 11. In light of the aforementioned clauses, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no expression on the merits of the case and with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies before a Court of competent jurisdiction. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 S.Sharma 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 29/09/2026 at 10:48:00