ARB.P./1130/2026 of GEOQUEST INDIA PVT LTD Vs BHARAT CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PVT LTD on 12 October 2026

1. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the Respondent and the Respondent was asked to file reply to the present petition. However, the same has not been filed. On a perusal of the affidavit of service filed, it appears that the notice has been duly served on the Respondent.

2. Despite the opportunity so granted, none appears on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent has also failed to file reply to the present petition.

3. In view thereof and considering that the Respondent has chosen not to participate despite sufficient service, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator.

4. The tracking details placed on record establish that the Respondent has been duly served at their address. The proof of service, as reflected from the tracking details is reproduced herein Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:14.10.2026 20:09:46 Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 1130/2026

below:-

Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:14.10.2026 20:09:46 Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 1130/2026

5. The work order dated 12.04.2024 contains an arbitration clause Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:14.10.2026 20:09:46 Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 1130/2026

being Clause 19. Clause 19 of the work order provides for resolution of disputes through a three-member Arbitral Tribunal where each party nominating each Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators nominating jointly the presiding Arbitrator.

6. It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement1.

7. In the present case, this Court is of the view that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

8. The Petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 08.04.2026 and nominated its nominee Arbitrator. However, the Respondent failed to nominate its Arbitrator insisting the filing of the present petition.

9. The claimed amount is stated to be Rs.1,22,14,225/- approx.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator.

11. Accordingly, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned District Judge (Retd.) (Mob. No. 9717497303) is appointed as a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within two weeks from today.

1 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:14.10.2026 20:09:46 Signature Not Verified

ARB.P. 1130/2026

12. The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within two weeks of entering reference.

13. The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

14. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including objection as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the learned Sole Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present order.

16. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes including email.

17. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J OCTOBER 12, 2026/pa

Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:14.10.2026 20:09:46 Signature Not Verified