Ramanand Mahto Vs Ashwath Quippo Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

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 disputes between the parties, arising out of the Work Order dated 10^th January, 2019, executed between the parties.

¶11

Office Noting shows that the respondent has been served by the Registry, through E-mail as well as the ordinary mode.

¶12

None appears for the respondent, despite service, when the matter is called out.

¶13

Accordingly, this Court proceeds with the matter.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid Work Order had been executed between the parties for “Pushing of MS pipe

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 27/04/2026 at 11:15:12

¶18

through trenchless pipe jacking & pushing of RCC NP4 pipe through Micro Tunneling Method at Delhi Jal Board R1A Ashok Vihar Delhi” , whereunder, the petitioner undertook to complete the construction work in question for the respondent, in lieu of compensation.

¶19

He submits that the petitioner completed the construction work, and consequently, raised a bill amounting to Rs. 10,78,992/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Two Only) on the respondent. During verification of the bill in question, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs. 10,24,128/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty-Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Eight Only) vide bill dated 05^th September, 2020.

¶20

He further submits that although the work in question was completed, the respondent is yet the pay the balance payment amounting to Rs. 10,24,128/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty-Four Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Eight Only), along with interest on delayed payment. Thus, disputes have arisen between the parties.

¶21

He draws the attention of this Court to Clause 19 of the Work Order, to submit that there exists an Arbitration Clause between the parties, i.e., Clause 19 of the Work Order.

¶22

He further draws the attention of this Court to a notice dated 05^th December, 2024, which was issued to the respondent, thereby, invoking the aforesaid Arbitration Clause, in terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, along with Speed Post receipt for sending the same.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the same, the respondent failed to reply to the notice dated 05^th December, 2024.

¶24

The aforesaid Clause 19 of the Work Order dated 10^th January, 2019,

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 27/04/2026 at 11:15:12

¶28

is reproduced as under:

¶29

“xxx xxx xxx

¶30

xxx xxx xxx”

¶31

Further, a reference may also be made to Clause 21 of the Work Order dated 10^th January, 2019, which is reproduced as under:

¶32

“xxx xxx xxx

¶33

xxx xxx xxx”

¶34

Perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, i.e., Clauses 19 and 21, clearly shows that there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and that the arbitration shall be held at Delhi/New Delhi. Further, the Courts at New Delhi have exclusive jurisdiction.

¶35

At this stage, the Court records the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has a claim of approximately Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only).

¶36

Thus, this Court is satisfied that there are disputes between the parties and there is a valid Arbitration Clause, and accordingly, the disputes are to be adjudicated by way of referring the parties to arbitral proceedings.

¶37

Thus, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a sole Arbitrator

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 27/04/2026 at 11:15:12

¶41

for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, and the following directions are issued in this regard:

¶42

i. Ms. Parul Khosla, Advocate (Mob: +91- 9899013803) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Arbitration Act.

¶43

iii. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court. iv. It shall be open to the respondent to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceedings.

¶44

v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶45

vi. The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from today.

¶46

Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application, if any, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶47

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance.

¶48

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶49

APRIL 25, 2026/KR

¶50

Page 4 of 4

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 27/04/2026 at 11:15:12

Ramanand Mahto v. Ashwath Quippo Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Mahto v. Ashwath Quippo Infra Projects Pvt. 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

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs Shubham Kumar Mishra & Anr.

Rajinder Pershad Vs Nitin Goel & Anr.

Skylink Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mukul Taneja

U-Turn Promoters Private Limited Vs Indian Institute of Hardware Technology Limited

Hero Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Av Corporation & Ors.

M/S the New Hope Foundation Vs M/S Innovative Financial Advisors Private Limited