Allowed¶12

Puneet Jain v. Imperia Structures Limited

Delhi HC4 May 2026ARB.P./371/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator Rajeev Gururaj; Unit Buyer's Agreement dated 17.11.2016; Clause 57 arbitration notice dated 31.10.2025; Puneet Jain v. Imperia Structures Limited; Schedule IV fees; Section 12 disclosure; respondent counsel no objection; Delhi High Court ARB.P. 371/2026; no observations on merits; claims and counter claims open before arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Rajeev Gururaj, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; arbitrator's fees governed by Schedule IV of the Act; arbitrator to comply with Section 12 of the Act before entering upon reference; copy of order to be forwarded to the arbitrator. ¶12

Puneet Jain Vs Imperia Structures Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent out of the Unit Buyer's Agreement dated 17.11.2016.

¶10

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and Mr. Rajeev Gururaj, Advocate, is appointed as sole arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The arbitrator's fees shall be governed by Schedule IV of the Act, and the arbitrator shall comply with Section 12 of the Act before entering upon reference.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims; the parties remain free to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator, to be considered in accordance with law.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Avneesh Jhingan, J.), by order dated 04.05.2026 in ARB.P. 371/2026, allowed a Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petition filed by Puneet Jain against Imperia Structures Limited and appointed Mr. Rajeev Gururaj, Advocate, as sole arbitrator. The dispute arises from a Unit Buyer's Agreement dated 17.11.2016 in respect of Unit No. 7010, 7th floor, Tower A, Virtual IT Space (55.74 sq. mtr./600 sq. ft.); arbitration was invoked by notice dated 31.10.2025 under Clause 57 of the Agreement, and on the respondent's failure to act the petition was filed. Respondent's counsel raised no objection to the reference. The arbitrator's fees are to be governed by Schedule IV of the Act, and the arbitrator is to comply with Section 12 of the Act before entering upon reference. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving the parties free to file claims/counter claims before the arbitrator.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 371/2026, I.A. 5421/2026 & I.A. 5422/2026 PUNEET JAIN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Anjaneya Mishra and Mr. Abhisehk Bhaduri, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

IMPERIA STRUCTURES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr. Ram Pawar, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 04.05.2026

¶10

The present petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner entered into a Unit Buyer‟s Agreement dated 17.11.2016 with the respondent for the suit premises situated at Unit No. 7010 at 7th floor in Tower A in Virtual IT Space, admeasuring 55.74 sq. mtr. (600 sq. ft.). Disputes arose between the parties to the lis. The petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 31.10.2025 under Clause 57 of the Agreement. On failure to do the needful, the present petition was filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions has no objection for referring the matter to arbitration.

¶12

Accordingly, the petition is allowed by appointing Mr. Rajeev Gururaj, Advocate (Mobile No.: 9704847263), as the sole arbitrator for

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 07/05/2026 at 11:34:42

¶15

adjudication of the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

¶16

The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be governed by Schedule IV of the Act. Before entering upon reference, the learned Arbitrator will comply with Section 12 of the Act.

¶17

It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it will be open for the parties to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned Arbitrator which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶18

A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Arbitrator for information.

¶19

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

¶20

MAY 4, 2026/Pa

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 07/05/2026 at 11:34:42

Puneet Jain v. Imperia Structures Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneet Jain v. Imperia Structures Limited

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

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India through Office of Chief Engineer Vs Ms Trg Industries Private Limited through Authorised Signatory

M/S Jaihind Diagnostic Centre Vs Moneywise Financial Services Private Limited

Ms Golden Chariot Hospitality Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Uchit Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

Satya Parkash and Brothers Private Limited Vs Public Works Department

M/S Aditya Thermopack Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director, Sanjay Rajput Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.