ARB.P. 1012/2026 p. 1 $~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010266072026 + ARB.P. 1012/2026 M/S KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Mr. Krishna Kumar Shukla, Advocates. versus M/S ELECTRONICS SECTOR SKILL COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumant Nayak, Mr, Shraddha Chaudhari and Ms. Smriti Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 23.09.2026 I.A. 16160/2026 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. I.A. 16161/2026 3. This application has been filed on behalf of Petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in refiling the petition. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in refiling the petition is condoned. 5. 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 10:47:43 ARB.P. 1012/2026 p. 2 ARB.P. 1012/2026 6. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 7. The disputes which are subject matter of the present petition emanate from an agreement dated 09.09.2022 executed and signed between the Petitioner and the Respondent pertaining to the work of construction of Common Utility Centre at Elcina Electronics Manufacturing Cluster, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Petitioner avers that it mobilized itself at the site as required but owing to hindrances created by the Respondent including failure to take timely decisions and provide requisite drawings on time, the project could not be completed within the stipulated time. Petitioner submitted invoices for payments basis certified work done on site, however, complete payments were not released. On 03.01.2026, Petitioner sent a legal notice to pay the outstanding dues. In its reply dated 21.01.2026, Respondent admitted the work done at site but stated that the issue of payments was under consideration before ESSCI’s Board and its sub- Committee. On 11.02.2026, Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration since the contract in question incorporates Article 12 as the arbitration agreement between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent has never disputed the existence of the arbitration clause and significantly, even in the reply filed before this Court, there is a categorical admission that Respondent does not dispute the existence or validity of arbitration agreement in Article 12 and therefore, there is no impediment in appointing the Arbitrator. 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 10:47:43 ARB.P. 1012/2026 p. 3 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that reply has been filed but the same is lying under objections. He hands over copy of the reply and assures that the original shall be brought on record during the course of the day. Basis the submissions in the reply, learned counsel fairly and candidly does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. It is submitted that albeit Petitioner has not followed the mechanism of appointment in Article 12 which provides that both parties shall first mutually appoint a Sole Arbitrator within 30 days from the date of the disputes, failing which the disputes shall be referred to an arbitration panel comprising of three Arbitrators, wherein each party shall appoint one Arbitrator and the nominated Arbitrators shall appoint the third Arbitrator, Respondent has no objection to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by this Court in the interest of expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the disputes, as stated specifically in paragraph 7 of the reply. 10. With the consent of the parties, reply is taken on record and perused. Respondent has fairly stated in the reply that Article 12 containing the arbitration agreement between the parties is not disputed. It is also stated that albeit Petitioner has not followed the mechanism prescribed in Article 12 for appointment of a three-member Arbitral Tribunal, however, in the interest of expeditious and cost-effective resolution of disputes, Respondent has no objection to an independent Sole Arbitrator being appointed by this Court. 11. In light of the aforesaid stand of the Respondent, this petition is allowed and with the consent of the parties, Mr. Sushant Singh, Advocate (Mobile No.9818897776) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per 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 10:47:43 ARB.P. 1012/2026 p. 4 Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act, as agreed. 12. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. It will be open to the Respondent to file a counter-claim, if any. 14. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/YA 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 10:47:43