Disposed

Skylord Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jetsetgo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026ARB.P./393/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes under a Business Development Agreement. Both parties consented to referral; the court appointed a retired Supreme Court judge as arbitrator under DIAC aegis and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta as sole arbitrator under DIAC aegis to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

Skylord Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jetsetgo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision : 13.04.2026

¶4

ARB.P. 393/2026

¶5

SKYLORD SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Aman Gupta, Ms. Divya Gupta, Mr. Anup Kashyap and Mr. Divyam Kandhari, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

JETSETGO AVIATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.

¶9

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Mayank Jain, Advocate through vc

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶12

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶13

The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996¹ , seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“ DIAC ”] for the adjudication of disputes inter se the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the Dispute Resolution Clause of the Business Development Agreement dated 01.03.2025² , specifically to Clauses 17.1 and 17.2 thereof, executed between the parties. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein under for ready reference:

¶14

1 Act

¶15

2 Agreement

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 16:14:24

¶17

1 of 7

¶18

“17. JURISDICTION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

¶19

17 .1. Amicable Settlement

¶20

In the event of any dispute between the Parties arising out of any claim, difference or controversy, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, any question regarding its execution, existence, validity, enforcement, breach, performance, interpretation, implementation, termination, expiration or the consequences of its nullity or the question as to whether the termination of this Agreement by one Party hereto has been legitimate, and any dispute relating to any obligation arising out of or in connection with it (" Dispute "), representatives of the Parties shall, attempt to settle the Dispute amicably.

¶21

17 .2. Arbitration

¶22

17.2.1.If after a period of 30 (thirty) days following service of a written notice from any party to the other parties stating the existence of a Dispute and the Parties have failed to amicably resolve the Dispute, such Dispute shall, at the request of any of the party, be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration seated in Delhi in accordance with the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶23

17.2.2. The dispute shall be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

¶24

17.2.3. The language of the arbitration shall be English and the arbitral award shall be final and binding on the Parties.

¶25

17.2.4. The venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi.”

¶26

The material on record indicates that the Petitioner invoked the aforesaid Dispute Resolution Clause, in terms of Section 21 of the Act, vide Legal Notice dated 18.11.2025.

¶27

At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the legal position governing the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act is no longe r res integra . A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 16:14:24

¶30

2 of 7

¶31

Spinning³ , after taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of the seven-Judge Bench in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re⁴ , comprehensively delineated the contours of judicial intervention at the stage of Section 11 of the Act. The excerpt of Krish Spg (supra ) reads as under:-

¶32

“ (c) Judicial interference under the 1996 Act

¶33

110 . The parties have been conferred with the power to decide and agree on the procedure to be adopted for appointing arbitrators. In cases where the agreed upon procedure fails, the courts have been vested with the power to appoint arbitrators upon the request of a party, to resolve the deadlock between the parties in appointing the arbitrators.

¶34

111 . Section 11 of the 1996 Act is provided to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties to settle their disputes by arbitration in situations where the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator(s). The parameters of judicial review laid down for Section 8 differ from those prescribed for Section 11. The view taken in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 and affirmed in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 that Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act are complementary in nature was legislatively overruled by the introduction of Section 11(6-A) in 2015. Thus, although both these provisions intend to compel parties to abide by their mutual intention to arbitrate, yet the scope of powers conferred upon the courts under both the sections are different.

¶35

112 . The difference between Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the 1996 Act is also evident from the scope of these provisions. Some of these differences are:

¶36

112.1 . While Section 8 empowers any “judicial authority” to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 11, the power to refer has been exclusively conferred upon the High Court and the Supreme Court.

¶37

112.2 . Under Section 37, an appeal lies against the refusal of the judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration, whereas no such provision for appeal exists for a refusal under Section 11.

¶38

112.3 . The standard of scrutiny provided under Section 8 is that of prima facie examination of the validity and existence of an arbitration agreement. Whereas, the standard of scrutiny under

¶39

3 (2024) 12 SCC 1

¶40

4 (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 3 of 7 16:14:24

¶42

Section 11 is confined to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

¶43

112.4 . During the pendency of an application under Section 8, arbitration may commence or continue and an award can be passed. On the other hand, under Section 11, once there is failure on the part of the parties in appointing the arbitrator as per the agreed procedure and an application is preferred, no arbitration proceedings can commence or continue.

¶44

113 . The scope of examination under Section 11(6-A) is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7. The examination of validity of the arbitration agreement is also limited to the requirement of formal validity such as the requirement that the agreement should be in writing.

¶45

114 . The use of the term “examination” under Section 11(6-A) as distinguished from the use of the term “rule” under Section 16 implies that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6-A) is limited to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence of the arbitration agreement, and does not include a contested or laborious enquiry, which is left for the Arbitral Tribunal to “rule” under Section 16. The prima facie view on existence of the arbitration agreement taken by the Referral Court does not bind either the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court enforcing the arbitral award.

¶46

115 . The aforesaid approach serves a twofold purpose — firstly, it allows the Referral Court to weed out non-existent arbitration agreements, and secondly, it protects the jurisdictional competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on the issue of existence of the arbitration agreement in depth.

¶47

¶48

117 . In view of the observations made by this Court in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 , it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd. , (2023) 9 SCC 385 that the jurisdiction of the Referral Court when dealing with the issue of “accord and satisfaction” under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration Act, 1996 & the Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1.

¶49

¶50

119 . The question of “accord and satisfaction”, being a mixed question of law and fact, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, if not otherwise agreed upon between the parties. Thus, the negative effect of competence-competence would

¶51

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 16:14:24

¶52

ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 4 of 7

¶53

require that the matter falling within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, should not be looked into by the Referral Court, even for a prima facie determination, before the Arbitral Tribunal first has had the opportunity of looking into it.

¶54

120 . By referring disputes to arbitration and appointing an arbitrator by exercise of the powers under Section 11, the Referral Court upholds and gives effect to the original understanding of the contracting parties that the specified disputes shall be resolved by arbitration. Mere appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal does not in any way mean that the Referral Court is diluting the sanctity of “accord and satisfaction” or is allowing the claimant to walk back on its contractual undertaking. On the contrary, it ensures that the principle of arbitral autonomy is upheld and the legislative intent of minimum judicial interference in arbitral proceedings is given full effect. Once the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, it is always open for the defendant to raise the issue of “accord and satisfaction” before it, and only after such an objection is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, that the claims raised by the claimant can be adjudicated.

¶55

121 . Tests like the “eye of the needle” and “ex facie meritless”, although try to minimise the extent of judicial interference, yet they require the Referral Court to examine contested facts and appreciate prima facie evidence (however limited the scope of enquiry may be) and thus are not in conformity with the principles of modern arbitration which place arbitral autonomy and judicial non-interference on the highest pedestal.

¶56

122 . Appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal at the stage of Section 11 petition also does not mean that the Referral Courts forego any scope of judicial review of the adjudication done by the Arbitral Tribunal. The 1996 Act clearly vests the national courts with the power of subsequent review by which the award passed by an arbitrator may be subjected to challenge by any of the parties to the arbitration.

¶57

¶58

126 . The power available to the Referral Courts has to be construed in the light of the fact that no right to appeal is available against any order passed by the Referral Court under Section 11 for either appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator. Thus, by delving into the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal at the nascent stage of Section 11, the Referral Courts also run the risk of leaving the claimant in a situation wherein it does not have any forum to approach for the adjudication of its claims, if its Section 11 application is rejected.

¶59

127 . Section 11 also envisages a time-bound and expeditious disposal of the application for appointment of arbitrator. One of the reasons for this is also the fact that unlike Section 8, once an application under Section 11 is filed, arbitration cannot commence until the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted by the Referral Court. This

¶60

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 16:14:24

¶61

ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 5 of 7

¶62

Court, on various occasions, has given directions to the High Courts for expeditious disposal of pending Section 11 applications. It has also directed the litigating parties to refrain from filing bulky pleadings in matters pertaining to Section 11. Seen thus, if the Referral Courts go into the details of issues pertaining to “accord and satisfaction” and the like, then it would become rather difficult to achieve the objective of expediency and simplification of pleadings.

¶63

128 . We are also of the view that ex facie frivolity and dishonesty in litigation is an aspect which the Arbitral Tribunal is equally, if not more, capable to decide upon the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. We say so because the Arbitral Tribunal has the benefit of going through all the relevant evidence and pleadings in much more detail than the Referral Court. If the Referral Court is able to see the frivolity in the litigation on the basis of bare minimum pleadings, then it would be incorrect to doubt that the Arbitral Tribunal would not be able to arrive at the same inference, most likely in the first few hearings itself, with the benefit of extensive pleadings and evidentiary material.”

¶64

(emphasis supplied)

¶65

The decision in Krish Spinning (supra) thus unequivocally reiterates that the Referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, is required to confine itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement and nothing beyond. The Court’s role is facilitative and procedural, namely , to give effect to the parties’ agreed mechanism of dispute resolution when it has failed, without embarking upon an adjudication of contentious factual or legal issues, which are reserved for the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶66

The valuation of the present dispute is contended to be aggregating to approximately Rs. 8.5 crores, including the counterclaim of the Respondent of approximately to Rs. 8 crores. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that the disputes may be referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator under the aegis of the DIAC.

¶67

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 6 of 7 16:14:24

¶68

Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta (Former Supreme Court Judge) (Mobile No. 9780008108) , to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶69

The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

¶70

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act within one (01) week of entering upon the reference.

¶71

The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e- mail.

¶72

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶73

Needless to say, nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the disputes between the parties.

¶74

Accordingly, the present Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶75

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. APRIL 13, 2026/rk/DJ

¶76

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VARNIKA Signing Da te:1 5.04.2026 16:14:24

¶77

ARB.P. 393/2026 Page 7 of 7

Skylord Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jetsetgo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skylord Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Jetsetgo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V K Nayar Vs G P Nayar & Anr.

Dtdc Express Limited Vs Nirvasa Healthcare Private Limited

Technocrats Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways & Anr.

Millennium Education Management Private Limited Vs Sharda Foundation

Asia Shipping International Transport Private Limited Vs Mr Abdul Salam Khan

Ms. Mira Devi and Anr. Vs Nine O Nine Structures Pvt. Ltd.