Delhi High Court · 2026-04-08
PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD vs SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
- Citation / case number
- ARB.P.-390/2026 2026:DHC:2958
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
- Respondent
- SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 08th APRIL, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: + ARB.P. 390/2026 PIDGE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asav Rajan, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Aditya Shah, Advocate (s) versus SLIKSYNC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Ms. Shruti Raina, Ms. Saloni Jain, Ms. Yoshita Sood, Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT 1. The instant Petition has been filed under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Petitioner against the Respondent seeking an appointment of a sole arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes arising out of a Merchant Services Agreement dated 18.09.2024 („Agreement‟) executed between the parties. 2. The Petitioner is a company having its registered office at 55, 2 nd Floor, Lane 2, Westend Marg, Saidullajab, Near Saket Metro Station, New Delhi – 110030. The Petitioner company is engaged in the business of providing logistic support services to its clients through third party technology enabled logistics platforms. Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM ARB.P. 390/2026 Page 1 of 7 SINGH KIRMOLIYA Signing Date:09.04.2026 11:43:28 3. The Respondent isa company having its registered office at H-129, Beta-2, Greater Noida I.A. Surajpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh – 201306. The Respondent Company is engaged in the business of selling fashion and apparel products and related services. 4. Material on record discloses that under the Agreement, the Petitioner, a logistics platform operator and service provider, engaged the Respondent to provide manpower through delivery partners/riders for its services. 5. It is stated that the Respondent was contractually obligated