Delhi High Court
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)/37/2026 of M/S JMD LIMITED Vs M/S PRIME WALK INFRA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S ANGAD ESTATE PVT. LTD.) on 7 October 2026
(T) (COMM.) 37/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010134352026 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 37/2026, I.A. 9156/2026, I.A. 9157/2026 M/S JMD LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Sawhney, Mr. Rohan Bhambri and Mr. Arnav Gosain, Advs. versus M/S PRIME WALK
$~59
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010134352026
+
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 37/2026, I.A. 9156/2026, I.A. 9157/2026
M/S JMD LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Arjun Sawhney, Mr. Rohan
Bhambri
and
Mr.
Arnav
Gosain, Advs.
versus
M/S PRIME WALK INFRA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS M/S ANGAD ESTATE PVT. LTD.)
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr.
Rakesh
Tiku,
Senior
Advocate, Mr Naveen Goel,
Mr.
Rishi
Bhatnagar,
Mr.
Riishabh Gaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
%
07.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 has been instituted on account of the recusal of the learned Sole Arbitrator, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.L. Bhayana (Retd.), at a stage when the arbitral proceedings had substantially concluded and only the pronouncement of the final award remained.
2. It is made out from the record that the arbitral proceedings had continued for approximately nine years during which the parties had 1 “Act” hereinafter completed the trial.
3. Upon conclusion of the hearings, the matter had been reserved for pronouncement of the award, however, vide an order dated 14.11.2025, the learned Sole Arbitrator recused himself from the proceedings citing personal reasons.
4. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking termination of the mandate of the erstwhile Sole Arbitrator and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in accordance with law.
5. The Petitioner further seeks continuation of the arbitral proceedings from the stage already reached having regard to the fact that the entire evidentiary and hearing process already stands concluded so as to avoid duplication of proceedings further delay and substantial prejudice to the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator.
7. The Petitioner claims an amount of approximately Rs.10 Crores.
8. Accordingly, Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Advocate, (Mob No. 9999902949) is appointed as a substituted Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from today.
9. 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 three weeks of entering reference.
10. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as mutually decided between the parties and the learned sole arbitrator.
11. The learned Arbitrator will take up the proceedings from the stage at which they are today.
12. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Mr. Anirudh Bhat, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes including email.
13. The erstwhile Arbitrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.L. Bhayana (Retd.) and the Petitioner is requested to transmit all the records to Mr. Anirudh Bhat, substituted Sole Arbitrator so as to enable the latter to proceed with the arbitration from the stage already reached.
14. The present petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/at