O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.)/603/2026 of M/S PACIFICA (INDIA) PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs M/S CNA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. on 7 August 2026

O R D E R

%

07.08.2026 I.A. 21291/2026 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ARB.P. 1367/2026, I.A. 21201/2026, I.A. 21292/2026

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”] by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the Joint Development Agreement dated 23.10.2007, the Security Agreement dated 06.02.2012 and the Share Pledge Agreement dated 22.03.2012.

2. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a Petition being ARB.P. 1316/2024 under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator since disputes had arisen between the Parties.

3. This Court vide Order dated 19.09.2024 observed that though there are three Agreements, disputes are only limited to the Security Agreement and that the arbitrator be appointed only qua the Security Agreement. A perusal of the said Order indicates that the Petitioner nominated Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, former Chief Justice of India as their nominee arbitrator. Since the Respondents had not appointed their nominee arbitrator, this Court by the said Order appointed Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, former Judge, Supreme Court of India as the nominee arbitrator of the Respondents. Both the learned Arbitrators appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) L. Nageswara Rao as the Presiding Arbitrator.

4. Material on record indicates that the Tribunal members have recused themselves from proceeding further by a Communication dated 05.02.2026. Pursuant to the arbitrator recusing, the Petitioner gave a notice dated 25.03.2026 to the Respondents intimating that they have now nominated Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.J. Mukhopadhaya of this Court as their nominee and requested the Respondents to appoint their nominee which has been rejected by a communication dated 24.04.2026.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 11. Since there is a breach in the procedure prescribed for appointment of an Arbitrator inasmuch as the Respondents have not appointed their nominee arbitrator, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

6. Although the present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Act, this Court notes that, in substance, it is a petition under Section 15 of the Act seeking substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Since the disputes between the parties have already arisen, there is no requirement to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Act. Accordingly, the present petition is confined only to the substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

7. Issue notice.

8. On taking steps, let a notice be issued to the Respondents through all permissible modes, including Dasti.

9. List on 29.09.2026. O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 603/2026 & I.A. 21228/2026

1. The present Petition under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for extension of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that since a Petition being ARB.P. 1367/2026 has already been filed under Section 11 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

3. The present Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 07, 2026 Prateek