MS. SUMITA BANU vs SMT LALITA RATHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23.01.2026 + ARB.P. 1918/2025 MS. SUMITA BANU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N U Ahmed & Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advs. versus SMT LALITA RATHI .....Respondent Through: Dr. Anurag Bhardwaj, Mr. Prabhu Saxena & Ms. Devyani, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Service Agreement dated 11.03.2025 [“Agreement”]. 2. The said Agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, being Clause 6, which reads as under: “6. Dispute Resolution: In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the same shall be amicably settled between the Parties. If any dispute is not settled amicably, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed mutually by both the Parties. The award given by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties. The language of Arbitral Proceedings shall be English. This arbitration Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 1918/2025 Page 1 of 5 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:27.01.2026 14:30:47 shall be governed by The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, I 996 and the place of arbitration shall be at Delhi.” 3. The material on record indicates that the Petitioner herein invoked arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act vide legal notice dated 01.09.2025. 4. This Court is cognizant of the scope of interference at the stage of a Petition under Section 11 of the Act. The law with respect to the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act has been fairly well settled. A Coordinate benc