Delhi High Court
ARB.P./1141/2026 of RAKESH KUMAR BURREJA Vs SS ENTERPRISES & ANR. on 30 October 2026
ARB.P. 1141/2026
$~5
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010301982026
+
ARB.P. 1141/2026
RAKESH KUMAR BURREJA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Vijay singh and Mr. Shubh
Goyal, Advs.
versus
SS ENTERPRISES & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
%
30.10.2026
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. Service upon the Respondents is deemed sufficient in view of the affidavit of service, which records that substituted service was effected upon them by way of newspaper publication, in terms of the directions issued by this Court under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The publication also notified the Respondents to appear before this Court, failing which the petition would be taken up for hearing. This Court had also granted an opportunity to the Respondents to file their reply to the present petition. However, no reply has been filed till date.
2. Despite substituted service having been duly effected and sufficient opportunity having been granted, none appears on behalf of the Respondents. The Respondents have also failed to file any reply to the present petition.
3. In view thereof and considering that the Respondents have chosen not to participate in the present proceedings, despite sufficient Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
service, this Court finds no impediment in proceeding to consider the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
4. The newspaper publications placed on record establishes that the Respondents have been duly served. The proof of service as reflected from the publication is annexed to the petition:- Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
5. Maintenance Agreement contains an arbitration Clause under Clause 17, which is reproduced hereinbelow: “Arbitration: Excepting the cases of theft/pilferage of electric energy or interference with meter etc. (which are inter-alia offences) and only after the bill amount payable are paid to MAINTENANCE AGENCY. In the event of any differences or disputes arising between MAINTENANCE AGENCY and the SPACE BUYER in respect of any matter connected with the accuracy of bills, supply of services or interpretation of any of these terms and conditions which cannot be determined amicably, Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
or settled through an agreement between MAINTENANCE AGENCY and the SPACE BUYER, the matter shall be referred to arbitration of Sole Arbitrator appointed by MAINTENANCE AGENCY. Reference to arbitration shall be without prejudice to the right of MAINTENANCE AGENCY to effect recovery of arrears of dues (through disconnection of supply or otherwise). The decision of Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at office of MAINTENANCE AGENCY and shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or statutory modifications thereto. The Courts at New Delhi alone and/or High Court at Delhi alone shall have the jurisdiction in all matters of dispute arising out of or touching and or covering this transaction and arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English language.”
6. It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
8. In the present case, this Court is of the view that a valid and binding agreement exists between the parties.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
10. Accordingly, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal (Advocate), Mob. No. 8889299671 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. Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, before the learned Sole Arbitrator including objection as to arbitrability and jurisdiction before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11 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.
15. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes including email.
1 “Act” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1141/2026
16. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J OCTOBER 30, 2026/at
Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.11.2026 11:52:04 Signature Not Verified