Delhi High Court
ARB.P./203/2026 of SUPERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASOLUTION PVT LTD Vs PROTO HELLENIC PVT LTD on 14 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010029122026 + ARB.P. 203/2026 SUPERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASOLUTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Kakkar & Mr. Vinod Patidar, Advs. versus PROTO HELLENIC PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM
$~1
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010029122026
+
ARB.P. 203/2026
SUPERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASOLUTION
PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Sahil Kakkar & Mr. Vinod
Patidar, Advs.
versus
PROTO HELLENIC PVT LTD
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
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.
O R D E R
%
14.08.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Parties under a Work Order dated 23.09.2025, issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent for the work of “MS-WIM (Weigh-In-Motion) System for the AMAR INFRA Project”.
2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that disputes have arisen between the parties on the ground that despite various communications, the Respondent has failed to implement the project and last of the reminder communication was sent to the Respondent on 14.11.2025.
3. Clause 11 of the said Work Order contains an arbitration clause. The said clause specifically indicates that the venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi, and there is no contra indicia to indicate that the seat of the arbitration shall be at any other place. It is stated that since the Respondent failed to honour their commitments, a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking arbitration was sent to the Respondent on 12.12.2025. Since no response was received from the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. Notice in the present Petition was issued on 30.01.2026.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that he has filed his Vakalatnama. However, the same is under objections.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent is directed to ensure that the defects are cured and the Vakalatnama is placed on record.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, Ms. Jasneet Chauhan, Advocate (Mob: 9711001338) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits.
13. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 14, 2026 Rahul