M/S Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs Inspire Automation

$~6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- ARB.P. 831/2026

M/S HAIER APPLIANCES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Chauhan, Advocate. versus INSPIRE AUTOMATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Lokendra Rana and Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocates.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶6

% 21.05.2026

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of vendor agreement dated 19.09.2022. Clause 8.13 of the said agreement is an arbitration clause.

¶8

The disputes having arising between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by giving a notice dated 23.12.2025 to the respondent. The respondent sent a reply to the forgoing notice vide reply dated 12.01.2026.

¶9

Since there was no consensus with regard to appointment of arbitrator, petitioner was constrained to file the present petition.

¶10

Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 07.05.2026.

¶11

Mr. Lokendra Rana, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. On being queried by the Court as to the existence of the arbitration clause under the vendor agreement, Mr. Rana fairly states, the arbitration clause is not disputed.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 25/05/2026 at 11:14:49

¶14

He submits that he has no objection, if an independent Arbitrator is appointed and prayer (b) in the reply to the petition is also to the same effect.

¶15

At the stage of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act, the Court is only required to satisfy itself, prima facie, as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. All other questions are to be left to the determination of the learned Arbitrator.

¶16

Since the arbitration clause is not in dispute, the present petition is allowed.

¶17

Accordingly, the dispute between the parties is referred to arbitration of Mr. Anukirat Singh Baweja, Advocate; Enrl. No. D/3549/2022 [Mob. 7018049239]; E-mail ID [email protected]. 10. The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. The DIAC may register the case forthwith.

¶18

The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.

¶19

It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶20

Petition stands disposed of.

¶21

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶22

MAY 21, 2026/ jg

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 25/05/2026 at 11:14:49

M/S Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Inspire Automation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Inspire Automation

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

Swarovski India Private Limited Vs Nazima Rehman Proprietor of Glittex Inc.

Qc One Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Shambhu Sharma Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Loesche India Private Limited Vs Ava Spicex Private Limited

Amcp Edutech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Rankers Gurukul & Anr.

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Anr.