Dismissed¶20

Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina v. Rohit Dua

Delhi HC8 Oct 2025ARB.P./962/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 arbitrator appointment request dismissed for non-prosecution; petitioner Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina absent at hearings; respondent Rohit Dua contended no valid arbitration agreement exists; License Agreement dated 28 March 2007 filed with petition belonged to M/s Lord Builders Private Limited, struck off from MCA records; premises handed over to petitioner; Delhi High Court, Justice Amit Bansal, order dated 08.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

As none appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the hearing on 11 September 2025 or on the date of the order, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶20

Dr. Er. Rajainderr Jaina Vs Rohit Dua — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 962/2025

¶4

DR. ER. RAJAINDERR JAINA .....Petitioner Through: None.

¶5

versus

¶6

ROHIT DUA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 08.10.2025

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 19 of the License Agreement dated 28^th March, 2007 entered into between the parties.

¶10

At the hearing on 11^th September, 2025, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, none appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

On the aforesaid date, the statement of counsel for the respondent was noted that there is no Arbitration Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. It was further noted that the License Agreement dated 28^th March, 2007 (wrongly noted as dated 13^th August, 2018) that has been filed along with the petition (pages 24-39 of the petition) is between another entity, i.e. , M/s Lord Builders Private Limited and the respondent.

¶12

It was further submitted that the aforesaid company has been struck

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

ARB.P. 962/2025

¶15

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 10/10/2025 at 14:41:19

¶16

off from the MCA records.

¶17

The reply of the respondent is on record, wherein the same stand has been taken by the respondent that there is no valid Arbitration Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶18