Devender Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Praveen Kumar

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, arising out of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement dated 23^rd June, 2016 (“Agreement”).

¶13

Learned counsels appearing for the parties submit that the talks of settlement between the parties have failed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners entered into the Agreement with the respondent to carry out the business of purchase and sale of land, flats and real estate promotions/engage in infrastructure development/exchange or acquire interest in any immovable property, under the name and style of „ Shree Gee InfraTech LLP‟ (“LLP”).

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the Agreement, the petitioners and respondent were partners in the LLP, wherein, equities were shared between the parties, with 50% shares in the name of respondent, i.e., Mr. Praveen Kumar, 25% in the name of petitioner no. 1, i.e., Mr. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, and 25% in the name of petitioner no. 2, i.e., Mrs. Pawan Aggarwal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the LLP undertook various infrastructure and development contracts, including, with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hans Raj College, and JMC Projects (India) Ltd.

¶20

It is submitted that during the execution of the aforesaid work, some of the work, which was beyond the Agreement, was awarded to the respondent‟s firm, namely, „M/s. Shilpi Technocraft LLP‟, whereas, the payment was made from the LLP.

¶21

It is further submitted that upon completion of the work and settlement of accounts, a sum of Rs. 1,60,82,697/- became payable towards the share of profits to the petitioners. However, despite repeated demands, the said amount has not been paid by the respondent to the petitioners, thereby, giving rise to the disputes under the Agreement.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the Agreement, which contains the Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 38. 9. He submits that the petitioners issued a legal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act dated 21^st July, 2025, which was dispatched on 22^nd July, 2025 and again dispatched on 01^st August, 2025. Thereafter, another notice dated 11^th August, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was also issued to the respondent.

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

By way of the said notices, the petitioners called upon the respondent to concur in the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes arising between the parties.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent, vide its reply dated 23^rd August, 2025 to the notice dated 11^th August, 2025, declined to accede to the petitioners‟ request for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.

¶27

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent submits that the alleged demands/claims raised by the petitioners pertain to the works executed by another entity, i.e., „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟ , belonging to the respondent and his family members, and not under the Agreement. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that petitioners have no relationship or stake in „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟ , and thus, the petitioners cannot demand any share from the income earned by the „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟ , in any manner, whatsoever. 14. It is submitted that since „M/s. Shilpi Technocrats LLP‟ is not a party to the Agreement, and therefore, the attempts of petitioners to adjudicate alleged disputes under the Agreement is misconceived.

¶28

It is further submitted that even if it is assumed that there exists any dispute, the same is ex-facie barred by limitation. Since 2019, the petitioners have been repeatedly raising the claims/demands, which establishes that despite being fully aware of the pending claims, no legal steps were taken by the petitioners in this regard.

¶29

It is further submitted that the present petition is pre-mature as the pre-arbitration consultation, as mandated by the Arbitration Clause has not been fulfilled.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the documents on record, at the outset, this Court notes that there exists a valid Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 38. The said Clause 38 of the Agreement, reads as under:

¶34

“xxx xxx xxx

¶35

xxx xxx xxx”

¶36

Perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause shows that the seat of arbitration shall be at Delhi.

¶37

Therefore, this Court is satisfied that there exists a valid Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 38 of the Agreement between the parties. Further, there are disputes between the parties which need to be adjudicated by way of arbitral proceedings.

¶38

This Court also notes that the petitioners have invoked the aforesaid Arbitration Clause by issuing legal notices under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, requesting the respondent to concur with the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. However, the respondent has declined to proceed with the

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

said appointment.

¶42

This Court notes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the approximate claim amount is to the tune of Rs. 1,60,82,697/(Rupees One Crore Sixty Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven Only).

¶43

With regard to the submission of the respondent that the present petition is pre-mature as the parties have not complied with the requirement of pre-arbitration consultation, this Court notes that the parties entered into settlement talks during the pendency of the present petition. Since the said settlement talks failed, this Court is of the opinion that the requirement of consultation provided under the Arbitration Clause stands satisfied.

¶44

With respect to the issue that the claim raised by the petitioners is barred by limitation, the same is kept open and the said preliminary objection shall be considered by the Arbitrator.

¶45

Thus, considering the aforesaid, the dispute between the parties is referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.

¶46

Accordingly, the following directions are issued in this regard:

¶47

i. Ms. Zeba Khair, Advocate, (Mobile No. 8800507452) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶48

ii. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.

¶49

iii. The Sole Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event there is any impediment to the Arbitrator‟s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

¶50

iv. It shall be open to the respondent to raise counter-claims, if any, in

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

arbitration proceedings.

¶55

v. The parties shall approach the Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from today.

¶56

vi. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, the arbitrability of any of the claims and/or counter-claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. 26. Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶57

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶58

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶59

FEBRUARY 5, 2026/KR

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:0 9.02.2026 19:07:07

¶62

Page 6 of 6

Devender Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar

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

Sonu Kasana Vs Arun Sharma & Ors.

M/S Era International Vs Anil Kumar Pitti Sole Prorietor of M/S Pitti Coal Company

Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indigo and Ors.

Ms Mvv Water Utility Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Jal Board

Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited Vs Diwakar Lal

Master Anhadraj Singh Sethi ( Minor ) Vs Rajat Singh Sethi