MS PRIYANKA JAIN vs M/S SHYAM SPECTRA PVT LTD & ANR.

$~O-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ARB.P. 1774/2024 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: MS PRIYANKA JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratush, Adv. versus M/S SHYAM SPECTRA PVT LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) by the petitioner, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, in terms of the Arbitration Clause 20 of the Appointment Letter dated 24.03.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, however, contends that respondent No. 2 has been unnecessarily arrayed as a party. Additionally, he asserts that there are counterclaims against the petitioner. Therefore, he states that, while reserving the rights and contentions of the respondents to 4. The Court takes note of the Arbitration Clause 20 of the Appointment Letter dated 24.03.2023, which reads as under:- “20. Arbitration: In case of any dispute or difference of what