Identifyplus Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Creativity at Best Technologies Ltd.

By way of this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the binding Term Sheet dated 27^th February, 2023. The Agreement provides for the resolution of disputes by Arbitration. Clause 26 of the binding Term Sheet contains the Arbitration Clause, which reads thus.

¶16

26. Governing Law	This Term Sheet and any Definitive
and Dispute	Agreements will be governed by and
Resolution	construedinaccordance withthelaw of

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 16/02/2026 at 14:25:59

¶19

India. Any dispute arising out of or in
connection with this Term Sheet and any definitive agreements shall be referred to
and finally resolved by arbitration. The
Arbitral Tribunal shall comprise of 3
arbitrators, of which the Acquirers shall
nominate 1 Arbitrator, the Existing
Shareholders and the Target Company
shall jointly nominate 1 Arbitrator and
the third arbitrator shall be appointed
mutually by the two nominated
arbitrator. The language of the
arbitration shall be English and the
parties shall bear the costs equally.
This Term Sheet shall, in all respects, be
governed by and construed in all
respects in accordance with the laws of
India and, subject to the Dispute
Resolution provision mentioned
hereinabove, courts in Delhi, India shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over the
Dispute referred to it under this Term Sheet.

¶20

The clause thus, provides that the Courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes referred under the Term Sheet. The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked Arbitration by giving a notice dated 27^th May, 2025 in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The said notice did not elicit any response.

¶21

Notice was issued in the present petition on 26.09.2025.

¶22

Mr. Anoj Kumar Singh and Ms. Smiridhi Babbar, Advocates had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent on 31.10.2025.

¶23

At request of the parties, the matter was referred to Mediation for

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 16/02/2026 at 14:25:59

¶26

exploring a possibility of amicable settlement. However, the settlement between the parties did not fructify.

¶27

On 23.01.2026, again Mr. Anoj Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent and prayed for time to seek instructions and, if deemed necessary, to file reply before the next date.

¶28

However, on the next date, i.e., on 04.02.2026 there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The matter was, therefore, adjourned for today in the interest of justice. Today again, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶29

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the Court is only required to satisfy itself prima facie as to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. All other questions are left open to be determined by the learned Arbitrator.

¶30

On the face of the material on record, particularly the binding Term Agreement, which contains an Arbitration Clause in the form of Clause 26, this Court is prima facie of the view that the Arbitration Clause exists between the parties. The respondent has also not controverted the Arbitration Clause.

¶31

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the disputes between the parties are referred to the arbitration of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate (Mobile No. 9811232930, Email ID: [email protected]).

¶32

The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and will be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 16/02/2026 at 14:25:59

¶35

The learned Arbitrator, as appointed by DIAC is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.

¶36

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

¶37

The petition stands disposed of.

¶38

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶39

FEBRUARY 6, 2026 nm

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 16/02/2026 at 14:25:59

Identifyplus Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Creativity at Best Technologies Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Identifyplus Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Creativity at Best Technologies 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

Raman Kumar Bansal Vs Vipin Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Ranjib Biswal Vs M/S Sachin Jain (Huf) & Ors.

Liberty Shoes Limited Vs Crocs Inc. Usa.

Renu Thakkar and Ors. Vs Aircel Ltd. and Anr.

Delhi and District Cricket Association Vs M/S Msl One Developers (Formerly Known as Msl Jangid Jv)

M/S Lord Krishna Financial Services Ltd. Vs Basesix Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.