PTC TECHNO PVT. LTD. vs SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25.04.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019 & I.A. 4353/2021 PTC TECHNO PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Diwan & Ms. Pyari, Advs. versus SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Niraj Singh, Ms. Ankita Singh & Mr. Karteek, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL) 1. This matter is taken up today as 03.03.2026 was declared holiday vide Notification No. 64/G-4/Gen1.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026. 2. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) challenging the arbitral award dated 17.11.2018. 3. The short controversy involved is whether the appointment of the arbitrator by the Vice President of the respondent company is in violation of the amended Section 12(5) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the parties to the lis entered into a Mould Agreement dated 01.06.2009 (hereinafter referred to as „MA‟) and two Purchase and Sale Agreements dated 26.11.2009 and 20.06.2013. As Signature Not Verified Signed By:CHANCHAL O.M.P. (COMM) 129/2019 Signing Date:27.04.2026 Page 1 of 10 16:45:32 per the MA, the respondent was to supply moulds for the manufacturing of parts to be carried out by the petitioner. The agreements were terminated and disputes arose between the parties with regard to the return of the moulds. Clause 18 of the MA reproduced below provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. On 25.04.2017, a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Vice President of the respondent company. “18. Any dispute or differences whatsoever arising between the Parties out of relating to the construction, meaning or operation or effect of this Agreement shall, unles