Disposed

Blue Oktopus Communications Private Limited v. Bhumika Enterprises Private Limited

Delhi HC20 Apr 2026ARB.P./490/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner advertising agency sought appointment of an arbitrator for unpaid retainer dues arising from a Work Order. The Court found a valid arbitration clause (Clause 15) and referred disputes to a sole arbitrator, leaving all rights, contentions and preliminary objections open.

What did the court decide?

Ms. Mehak Tanwar, Advocate, appointed Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties.

Blue Oktopus Communications Private Limited Vs Bhumika Enterprises… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 490/2026 BLUE OKTOPUS COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aarya Shekhar, Adv. (Through VC)

¶4

versus

¶5

BHUMIKA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA O R D E R % 20.04.2026

¶7

None appears for the respondent despite service.

¶8

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties, arising out of the Work Order dated 28^th October, 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent by way of the said Work Order, had appointed the petitioner as an advertising agency, as per which, the respondent was to pay retainer amount of Rs. 100,000/- per month exclusive of GST@ 18%. 4. He submits that despite the Work Order only being for a period of 12 months, the petitioner continued to provide service to the respondent. However, by way of Email dated 21^st January, 2023, the respondent terminated the Work Order, effective from 31^st January, 2023. 5. He further submits that pursuant to the termination, the petitioner shared the outstanding dues of amounting to Rs. 8,12,078/-, with the

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. 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 22/04/2026 at 11:36:30

¶11

respondent. However, disputes arose, as despite follow ups with the respondent, the said dues were not being cleared by the respondent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the nonpayment, the petitioner issued a Legal Notice dated 24^th December, 2025, under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, invoking arbitration as per the terms of the Work Order, which was duly received by the respondent. However, no response was made by the respondent towards the same.

¶13

Attention of this Court has been drawn to the proof of service, wherein, the Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act has been received by the respondent.

¶14

At this stage, the attention of this Court is brought to the Work Order dated 28^th October, 2020, which contains an Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 15, which reads as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

Page 2 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 22/04/2026 at 11:36:30

¶20

Perusal of the aforesaid Arbitration Clause clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, which stipulates reference of disputes between the parties to a Sole Arbitrator. Further, the courts at New Delhi have jurisdiction.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that they have a claim of approximately Rs. 14 Lacs.

¶22

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

¶23

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties the following directions are issued:

¶24

i. Ms. Mehak Tanwar, Advocate, (Mobile No.: 9711859466) is appointed as a 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.

¶25

iii. The 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 there is 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.

¶26

v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, the arbitrability of any of the claims and/or counter-claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator. vi. The parties shall approach the Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 22/04/2026 at 11:36:30

¶30

today.

¶31

Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶32

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

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

¶34

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶35

APRIL 20, 2026/KR

¶36

Page 4 of 4

¶37

Blue Oktopus Communications Private Limited v. Bhumika Enterprises Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Blue Oktopus Communications Private Limited v. Bhumika Enterprises Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dolly Prem Ramnani Vs Amrinderpal Singh & Ors.

Sunita Sinha Vs M/S Leela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nikhil Dewangan

Supreme Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sterling Vehicle and General Sales Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

M S Lakshmi Infrastructure and Developers India Private Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India

Marketing King Online Private Limited and Ors. Vs Sh. Sahil Gupta