Allowed¶8

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Aaic Building Solutions Ltd.

Delhi HC25 Feb 2026ARB.P./1483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 petition; Delhi High Court; arbitrator appointment; work order no.003/AAIC/WO/2019-20 dated 28.10.2019; Clause 30 arbitration clause (Delhi jurisdiction); Section 21 notice dated 12.08.2025 unanswered; respondent served but absent; prima facie existence of arbitration agreement; arbitrator appointed: Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017); arbitration under aegis of DIAC; Section 12 declaration; ex parte appointment; petition allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017) as arbitrator; disputes between the parties referred to arbitration under the aegis of DIAC; petition allowed and stands disposed of. ¶8

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs Aaic Building Solutions Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017) as arbitrator; disputes between the parties referred to arbitration under the aegis of DIAC; petition allowed and stands disposed of.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether, at the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, an arbitration agreement exists between the parties (to be assessed prima facie by the Court). +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court is required only to satisfy itself prima facie as to the existence of the arbitration agreement.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

All questions other than the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement are to be left to the determination of the learned Arbitrator.

¶6

Key takeaways

The material on record, particularly the agreement dated 28.10.2019, shows that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties; the respondent did not appear to controvert this position.ratio¶7
The petition is allowed and the disputes between the parties are referred to the arbitration of Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017).ratio¶8
The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003, and governed by the Rules of DIAC, including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Vikas Mahajan, J.), ARB.P. 1483/2025, order dated 25.02.2026: Petition by Subhash Chandra Sharma under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes with AAIC Building Solutions Ltd arising under work order no.003/AAIC/WO/2019-20 dated 28.10.2019, whose Clause 30 constitutes the arbitration clause subjecting the agreement to Delhi jurisdiction only. The petitioner's Section 21 notice dated 12.08.2025 drew no response; the respondent, though served (notice received by its representative Deepanshu), did not appear. Holding that at the Section 11 stage the Court need satisfy itself only prima facie of the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving all other questions to the arbitrator, the Court found the agreement dated 28.10.2019 evidencing such an agreement and allowed the petition, referring the disputes to Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017), with arbitration under the aegis of DIAC governed by its Rules (including arbitrator remuneration), a declaration under Section 12 prior to entering upon the reference, service of the unrepresented respondent per DIAC rules, and all rights and contentions left open; the petition stands disposed of.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 1483/2025 SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shram Vir Vats, Adv. versus AAIC BUILDING SOLUTIONS LTD .....Respondent Through:

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶5

% 25.02.2026

¶6

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the work order no.003/AAIC/WO/2019-20 dated 28.10.2019. The agreement provides for resolution of disputes by an Arbitration.

¶7

Clause 30 of the said agreement is the arbitration clause. The clause further provides that agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi only. 3. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by giving a notice dated 12.08.2025 in terms of Section 21 of the Act which did not elicit any response, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

¶8

Notice was issued in the present petition vide order dated 15.09.2025. 5. The service report reveals that the respondent has been served by ordinary means. Besides that, the petitioner has also served the respondent, and an affidavit of service along with the tracking report is on record, which reveals that the notice has been received by the representative of respondent company namely, Deepanshu. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service.

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

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 09/03/2026 at 17:00:25

¶11

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court only requires to satisfy itself, prima facie , as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. All other questions are to be left to the determination of the learned Arbitrator.

¶12

The material on record, particularly the agreement dated 28.10.2019, shows that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The respondent has also not appeared to controvert this position.

¶13

The petition is, therefore, allowed, and the disputes between the parties are referred to arbitration of Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017); [Mob. 8527080105].

¶14

The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. 10. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference. 11. Further, since respondent is not represented before this Court, it is made clear that respondent be also served in accordance with the rules of DIAC in the arbitration proceedings.

¶15

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶16

Petition stands disposed of.

¶17

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 25, 2026/dss

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 09/03/2026 at 17:00:25

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Aaic Building Solutions Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Aaic Building Solutions Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reporter Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Fanatic Sports Private Limited and Ors.

Master Athrava Tripathi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

G4S Security Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Parnika Commercial and Estates Pvt. Ltd.

Drak Probuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aerens Entertainment Zone Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Drak Homebuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aerens Entertainment Zone Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Emboss Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Aerens Entertainment Zone Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.