Dismissed¶30

Mr. Vivek Ranjan v. Mrs. Kiran Girdhar & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2026ARB.P./90/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order dismissing ARB.P. 90/2026 under Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of sole arbitrator refused; Section 7 requirements (written, signed by parties) not met; parties named in Success Fee Agreement dated 18.08.2023 were non-signatories while the signatory was not a party; petitioner Vivek Ranjan v. Kiran Girdhar & Ors.; advocates Abhijeet Saxena (petitioner), Naresh C. Sharma and Lokesh Kumar Sharma (respondents); decision date 20.02.2026; bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.

What did the court decide?

The Success Fee Agreement does not answer the description of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act: the parties named in the Agreement are not its signatories, and the person who signed the document is not described as a party to the Agreement. ¶28

Mr. Vivek Ranjan Vs Mrs. Kiran Girdhar & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 90/2026 & I.A. 939/2026 (For Exemption)

¶4

MR. VIVEK RANJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhijeet Saxena, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

MRS. KIRAN GIRDHAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. Naresh C. Sharma and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶8

O R D E R % 20.02.2026

¶9

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“ Act ”], seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes stated to have arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondents under the Success Fee Agreement dated 18.08.2023 [“ Agreement ”].

¶10

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the present petition is not maintainable since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though named in the Agreement, are not signatories thereto, whereas Respondent No. 3, who is the signatory to the Agreement, is not a party to the Agreement.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the said contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is factually correct, Respondent No. 3 has signed the Agreement on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is therefore contended that the present petition is maintainable against all three Respondents, or at least

¶12

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 24/02/2026 at 11:58:13

¶13

against Respondent No. 3, being the signatory to the Agreement.

¶14

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The issue which arises for consideration is whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Section 7 of the Act, which delineates the contours of an arbitration agreement, reads as follows:-

¶15

“ 7. Arbitration agreement. —( 1 ) In this Part, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.

¶16

(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.

¶17

(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

¶18

(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in—

¶19

(a) a document signed by the parties;

¶20

(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication 1 [including communication through electronic means] which provide a record of the agreement; or

¶21

(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.

¶22

(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”

¶23

A plain reading of Section 7(1) of the Act shows that an arbitration agreement is an agreement between the parties to submit disputes, which have arisen or may arise between “the parties” to the agreement to arbitration.

¶24

Further, a perusal of Section 7(3) and (4) of the Act would also make it apparent that an arbitration agreement is required to be in writing and, for the purposes of the present matter, is required to be contained in a document signed by the parties.

¶25

The Agreement, as it presents itself before this Court, does not answer the description of an arbitration agreement as set out in Section

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 24/02/2026 at 11:58:13

¶28

7 of the Act. The parties named in the Agreement are not the signatories thereto, and the person who has signed the document is not described as a party to the Agreement. Consequently, no valid arbitration agreement can be said to exist between the Petitioner and the Respondents before this Court.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the Respondents and rejects the submission of the Petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the present petition under Section 11 of the Act is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶31

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 20, 2026/nd/her

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 24/02/2026 at 11:58:13

Mr. Vivek Ranjan v. Mrs. Kiran Girdhar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vivek Ranjan v. Mrs. Kiran Girdhar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swastik Exports Vs Rameshwari Overseas

Wello Retail Private Limited Vs Sant Parmanand Blind Relief Mission

M/S Food Inn Now Known as Ms Hotel Signature Inn Vs Alcott Town Planners Private Limited Now Known as Oyo Hotels and Homes Private Limited & Anr.

Shankar Agarwal Vs National Highways and Infrastructu Development Corporation Limited

Mis H.R. Construction Private Limited, Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Nhidcl)

Welkin Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Formerly Known as Welkin India Incorporate Vs National Highways Authority of India through Its Chairman & Anr.