M/S WIRETEL SOLUTION PVT.LTD vs M/S ANNU INFRA CONSTRUCT INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR

Judgment text excerpt

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 271/2024 and CM APPL. 67957/2024 M/S WIRETEL SOLUTION PVT.LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravikesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. versus M/S ANNU INFRA CONSTRUCT INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Dahiya, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of an order dated 04.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) 40/2023 captioned Wiretel Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Annu Infra Construct India Pvt. Ltd. 2. Admittedly, the Petition filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as ‘AC Act’] against the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator is pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge. 3. On 04.09.2024, learned counsel representing the Appellant had submitted that the Award passed by the Arbitrator is liable to be set Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN FAO(OS) (COMM) 271/2024 Signing Date:24.11.2025 Page 1 of 3 15:40:56 aside, as the appointment of the Arbitrator is unilateral, while relying on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Govind Singh v. M/s Satya Group Pvt Ltd and Anr; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 37. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that there is not even a whisper of an allegation in the Petition that the appointment of the Arbitrator was unilateral. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge rejected this contention of the Appellant and adjourned the matter to 21.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel representing the Appellant submits that afte