Delhi High Court

ARB.P./1586/2026 of BRAND VISAGE COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD Vs AHAD KAMRAN PROPRIETOR AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AZRAF ORGANICO GREENS on 7 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010417812026 + ARB.P. 1586/2026 BRAND VISAGE COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vibha Sharma, Mr. Mukund Thakur, Mr. Gokulesh Gautam, Ms. Surabhi Yadav, Advocates versus AHAD KAMRAN PROPRIETOR AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AZRAF ORGANICO

$~63

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

#

CNR No. DLHC010417812026

+

ARB.P. 1586/2026

BRAND VISAGE COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Vibha Sharma, Mr. Mukund

Thakur, Mr. Gokulesh Gautam, Ms.

Surabhi Yadav, Advocates

versus

AHAD KAMRAN PROPRIETOR AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

AZRAF ORGANICO GREENS

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Nashit Ali, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

O R D E R

% 07.09.2026

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the Agreement for Creative and Digital Agency Services dated 26.09.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”).

2. Material on record indicates that the Petitioner was appointed as creative and digital marketing agency for rendering various professional services, including social media management, branding and packaging, website development, influencer marketing, graphic designing and other digital marketing services by the Respondents.

3. It is stated that though the Agreement was initially executed for a fixed period of six months, however, on 01.04.2025 agreement period was further extended till end of August 2025 without any written agreement.

4. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties regarding clearing of outstanding amounts by the Respondent.

5. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that despite several communications, the Respondent has failed to comply with the obligations made under the Agreement and an outstanding amount of Rs.1,64,500/- is due and payable by the Respondents. It is stated that apart from the outstanding amount, the Petitioner has also claimed an amount of Rs.39,480/-.

6. Material on record indicates that Clause 6.1 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, by which the parties have agreed to get their disputes adjudicated through arbitration. Perusal of Clause 6.1 of the Agreement stipulates that the seat of the arbitration shall be Delhi. As such, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the present Petition.

7. Material on record further indicates that a Notice dated 24.07.2026 for invoking Arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Act was sent to the Respondent, which has not been replied to by the Respondents and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the Parties.

8. Issue notice.

9. Mr. Nashit Ali, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.

10. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

11. Accordingly, Mr. Sarthak Bhatia, Advocate (Mob: 9828354792) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

12. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

13. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act within two weeks of entering the reference.

14. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

15. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits.

16. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 Prateek

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead