Affle 3I Limited Vs Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

Affle 3I Limited Vs Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of as infructuous with liberty granted to the parties to avail of their legal rights; DIAC requested to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within 10 days of receipt of the Order.

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed pursuant to the petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since DIAC is already seized of the representation of the petitioner, DIAC is requested to consider and dispose of the same within 10 days of receipt of this Order.

Key takeaways

The respondent may file a response to the said representations within 2 days, and DIAC will consider and pass an appropriate order keeping in view the law laid down on this aspect by various Courts from time to time.ratio¶16
Since DIAC will decide the representation, the petition has become infructuous and is disposed of, granting liberty to the parties to avail of their legal rights.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J.), ARB.P. 1761/2025, decided 23.12.2025: Affle 3I Limited v. Talent Unlimited Online Services Private Limited. Petition under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator, disposed of as infructuous. Background: parties had entered a Global Monetisation Partnership Agreement (GMPA) dated 08.08.2020; disputes over alleged illegal termination of the Contract for non-payment of invoices were already pending before an arbitrator (DIAC/6017/02-23); the respondent invoked Section 18, MSME Development Act 2006 for the same invoices, and the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Delhi referred the matter to DIAC, where it was registered as DIAC/11693/10-25; the petitioner's representations of 18.08.2025, 10.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 asking that the MSME-claim disputes be referred to the same arbitrator remained undecided with DIAC. Decision: DIAC, already seized of the representation, was requested to consider and dispose of it within 10 days of receipt of the Order; the respondent was permitted to file a response within 2 days, with DIAC to pass an appropriate order keeping in view the law laid down by various Courts; since DIAC will decide the representation, the petition was disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the parties to avail of their legal rights.

$~6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ARB.P. 1761/2025 AFFLE 3I LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Adv. versus

TALENT UNLIMITED ONLINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Manik Dogra Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Devashish Das Adv., Ms. Anandini Kumari Rathore Adv., Mr. Arijeet Bhattacharjee Adv., Sanyam Kumar Adv.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 23.12.2025

This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent entered into the Global Monetisation Partnership Agreement (GMPA) dated 08.08.2020, whereby the keyboard application of respondent will be utilised to generate ad revenue by displaying ad’s provided by the petitioner’s advertisers. Later, there were disputes between the parties regarding illegal termination of the Contract on the basis of non-payment of invoices and the same is pending before an Arbitrator in case bearing No. DIAC/6017/02-23.

The respondent has thereafter, invoked Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for non-payment of the same very invoices, which also has been referred by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (South East) Delhi, to DIAC for appointment

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 26/12/2025 at 11:34:02

of an Arbitrator.

The petitioner made representations dated 18.08.2025, 10.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 to refer the disputes arising out of the respondents’ MSME claims to the same Arbitrator and that representation has not yet been decided by the DIAC, and an intimation was received by the petitioner that the MSME reference is registered as DIAC/11693/10-25 and hence the present petition has been filed.

Since DIAC is already seized of the representation of the petitioner, DIAC is requested to consider and dispose of the same within 10 days of receipt of this Order.

The respondent may also file a response to the said representations within 2 days from today and the DIAC will consider and pass an appropriate order keeping in view the law laid down on this aspect by various Courts from time to time.

Since DIAC will decide the representation, the petition has become infructuous and is disposed of, granting liberty to the parties to avail of their legal rights.

JASMEET SINGH, J

DECEMBER 23, 2025/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 26/12/2025 at 11:34:02