Allowed¶22

M/S. Raaj Khosla and Company Private Limited v. Mr. Anindya Sarkar & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Apr 2026O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)/41/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: substitution of arbitrator; recusal of sole arbitrator; Sections 14 and 15, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12 declaration; DIAC rules; Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.); O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2026; Raaj Khosla and Company Pvt Ltd v. Anindya Sarkar. Held: petition for substitution allowed; disputes referred to Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.) under DIAC aegis.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of arbitrator granted: disputes referred to arbitration of Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.), to be held under the aegis of DIAC and governed by DIAC rules including as to arbitrator remuneration; arbitrator requested to furnish a Section 12 declaration before entering upon the reference. ¶22

M/S. Raaj Khosla and Company Private Limited Vs Mr. Anindya Sarkar… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether, on account of the recusal of the learned sole arbitrator, the arbitrator should be substituted and the disputes referred to a new arbitrator under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶16

Court's answer

The petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for substitution of the arbitrator was allowed, and the disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.).

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The interim application (I.A. 10419/2026) under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.

¶13

Key takeaways

The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.ratio¶23
The newly appointed arbitrator was requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.) allowed O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2026 filed by M/S. Raaj Khosla and Company Private Limited under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for substitution of the learned sole arbitrator, who had earlier been appointed by the Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 and who, in proceedings dated 24.03.2026, had recorded his recusal on account of a busy schedule. The disputes were referred to arbitration of Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.), to be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Delhi High Court, and governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the arbitrator's remuneration; the arbitrator was requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference. An accompanying application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2026

¶4

M/S. RAAJ KHOSLA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Adv. with Mr. Hitender Chouhan, AR of Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

MR. ANINDYA SARKAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Udit Nikhil Vyas, Adv. for respondents.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 16.04.2026

¶12

I.A. 10419/2026 (under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2026

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) for substitution of Arbitrator on account of recusal of the learned sole arbitrator. 4. The learned sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶17

Attention of the Court has been invited to the proceedings of the

¶18

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 20/04/2026 at 15:22:23

¶20

learned Arbitrator dated 24.03.2026, wherein the learned Arbitrator has recorded that on account of his busy schedule, he will not be able to continue as an Arbitrator and thus recusing from the captioned matter.

¶21

In view of the above, issue notice. Mr. Udit Nikhil Vyas accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 7. Mr. Vyas, on instructions, submits that he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed, and the disputes between the parties are now referred to arbitration of Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.) [Mob.9910384689].

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Petition stands disposed of.

¶26

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶27

APRIL 16, 2026 N.S. ASWAL

¶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 20/04/2026 at 15:22:23

M/S. Raaj Khosla and Company Private Limited v. Mr. Anindya Sarkar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Raaj Khosla and Company Private Limited v. Mr. Anindya Sarkar & Anr.

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

Rachna Vs State

Mr. Samir Krishan Modi Vs Dr. Bina Modi & Ors.

Ms Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Ms Coronation Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Mr. Nitin Mehendru & Ors. Vs Sh. Prahlad Rai & Ors.

Jagdeep Kishore Vs Mukul Kishore & Ors.

Ahamad Nafees Teacher Training College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.