M/S GOKUL AGRI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1260/2025 and I.A. 20389/2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: M/S. GOKUL AGRI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GOKUL HOUSE, BLOCK-A, GOKUL PRATHAM, BESIDES SW A BUNGLOWS, NR. TAPOVAN CIRCLE, T.P-44, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-382424 .....Petitioner (Through: Mr.Ashish Khorana (Thr. VC).) versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ARMY PURCHASE ORGANIZATION, ROOM NO. 313, 'C' WING, SENA BHAWAN, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT, IHQ OF MOD(ARMY) /OMG'S BRANCH, DHQ PO, NEW DELHI - 110001 .....Respondent (Through: Mr. Anshuman, SPC with Mr. Vidur Dwivedi and Mr. Karan Rawal, Advs.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who seeks for appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed Page 1 of 5 SHARMA Signing Date:27.08.2025ARB.P. 1260/2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:30:58 KUMAR KAURAV 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „the A&C Act‟) 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the responded awarded three contracts to the petitioner for the supply of 1440 MT of refined sunflower oil secured by Bank Guarantee of Rs. 82,96,398/-. Of the three contracts, one contract was completed. According to the petitioner, the related Bank Guarantee was not released. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through Clause 3 of the agreement dated 30.05.2024 and 31.05.2024 and contends that in view of the subsisting arbitration clause, the Arbitrator is required to be appointed who shall deal with the dispute which has arisen in the instant petition. For the sake of clarity, Clause 3 of the agreement is