Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB.P. 961/2025
Date of Decision: 27.11.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S POURING POUNDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghav Wadhwa, Mr. Amitjot Chadha, Ms. Jahnvi Ghai and Ms. Anjali Jain, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajiv Dewan and Mr. Raunak Gupta, Advs.
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act”), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties.
JUDGMENT
2. The dispute between the parties has arisen from market agreement dated 20.09.2022. The parties have admitted that an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 15, exists in the agreement between the parties and have also mutually consented to the appointment of an arbitrator. The said clause is KUMAR KAURAV ARB.P. 961/2025 extracted as under: “15.
GOVERNING LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION: This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and governed by the laws of India and for all purposes only the courts at New Delhi shall have the exclusive jurisdiction. Any dispute arising out of or related to or connected with any provisions under this contract shall be resolved as per the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in New Delhi. The language of arbitration shall be English.”
3. Accordingly, Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Advocate (Mobile No.+91 9811663159, e-mail id: ruchikasharmaba@gmail.com ) is being appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the inter se disputes between the parties.
4. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and in terms of its rules and regulations. The Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
5. The Sole Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12 (2) of the Act within a week of entering on reference.
6. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
7. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Let a copy of the instant order be sent to the Sole Arbitrator through electronic mode as well.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025/aks/mj KUMAR KAURAV