Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Limited v. Newtown Square Management Services Private Limited

Delhi HC8 May 2026ARB.P./475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC ARB.P. 475/2026 (Subramonium Prasad, J., 08.05.2026); S.11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of Sole Arbitrator Balaji Srinivasan; DIAC aegis and fee schedule; disclosure S.12(2); arbitration Clause 20.2, venue Delhi; Property Management Service Agreement dt. 24.11.2022; termination 27.09.2024; S.21 notice 02.05.2025 unanswered; JLL Building Operations v. Newtown Square Management Services; rights and contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with appointment of Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; arbitration under the aegis of DIAC with fees per DIAC Schedule of Fees; disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering reference; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶¶30

Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Limited Vs Newtown… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether, disputes having arisen between the parties and the Agreement containing an arbitration clause at Clause 20.2, an Arbitrator ought to be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Since disputes have arisen between the Parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause at Clause 20.2, the Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), abiding by its rules and regulations, with the Arbitrator's fees as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees.ratio¶¶25
The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks from the date of entering into reference.ratio¶¶26
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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad, J.) — ARB.P. 475/2026, decided 08.05.2026: Section 11(6) petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Limited against Newtown Square Management Services Private Limited, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for disputes under a Property Management Service Agreement dated 24.11.2022 (Petitioner to provide property/facility management services; Agreement terminated by Petitioner on 27.09.2024; certain invoices alleged uncleared; Section 21 notice dated 02.05.2025 unanswered). Finding that disputes had arisen and that Clause 20.2 of the Agreement contained an arbitration clause with venue at Delhi, the Court appointed Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) per its rules, with fees per the DIAC Schedule of Fees; disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering reference; all rights and contentions on claims/counter-claims kept open for the Arbitrator to decide on merits; nothing in the Order to be construed as an expression on the merits. Petition disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 475/2026

¶4

JONES LANG LASALLE BUILDING OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ankit Yadav and Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NEWTOWN SQUARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Padora, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

08.05.2026

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties under the Property Management Service Agreement dated 24.11.2022 ( hereinafter referred to as “ Agreement ” ).

¶13

It is the case of the Petitioner that under the Agreement, the Petitioner was to provide Property Management and Facility Management Services to the Respondent.

¶14

It is stated that since disputes arose between the parties, the Agreement was terminated by the Petitioner on 27.09.2024.

¶15

It is the case of the Petitioner that certain invoices have yet not been

¶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 13/05/2026 at 10:56:37

¶18

cleared by the Respondent.

¶19

Clause 20.2 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause by which the parties have agreed to get their disputes adjudicated through arbitration. The said clause specifically indicates that the venue of the arbitration shall be at Delhi.

¶20

A notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking arbitration was sent to the Respondent on 02.05.2025 which has not been replied to by Respondent. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

¶21

Notice in the present petition was issued on 20.03.2026.

¶22

Mr. Vikas Padora, learned Counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

¶23

In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the Parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause at Clause 20.2, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶24

Accordingly, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan , Advocate (Mob. No. 9868120258) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶25

The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“ 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.

¶26

The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, within two weeks from the date of entering into reference.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 13/05/2026 at 10:56:37

¶29

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.

¶30

Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 15. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending Application(s), if any.

¶31

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶32

MAY 08, 2026 Prateek

¶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 13/05/2026 at 10:56:37

Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Limited v. Newtown Square Management Services Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Limited v. Newtown Square Management Services Private 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

Thermax Limited Vs National Fertilizers Ltd.

Ada Buildwell Infratech LLP Vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited

Indra Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Roop Inder Kaur & Ors.

Mr Nirmal Kishore Jain & Anr. Vs M/S Omaxe Limited

Tata Capital Limited Vs Pr Sales Agency and Anr.

Tata Capital Limited Vs Ajay Kumar & Anr.