M/S RED BRICKS DEVELOPERS vs M/S ARVITIS BISTRO PRIVATE LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 38/2026, I.A. 13296/2026 (Stay), I.A. 13297/2026 (EX.), I.A. 13298/2026 (EX. From filing certified copy of the impugned order) & I.A. 13299/2026 (Seeking permission to file beyond five pages in synopsis and list of dates) M/S RED BRICKS DEVELOPERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Mr. Bharat Malhotra and Mr. Kushal Malhotra, Advocates. versus M/S ARVITIS BISTRO PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aaditya Vijaykumar, Ms. Akshita Katoch, Ms. Namrata Mohapatra and Mr. Adarsh Nair, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the Order dated 06.05.20261 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, more particularly the directions contained in Sub-Para 8(b) of Paragraph 6 thereof. By way of the said directions, the learned Arbitrator has directed as follows: “6. After further submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is now confirming the order dictated yesterday with some variations as can 1 Impugned Order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:18.05.2026 ARB. A. (COMM.) 38/2026 Page 1 of 6 16:58:47 be noted from below: “1. ……. ***** 8. Secondly, as far as the items on the ground floor and the 1st floor are concerned, there is a dispute as to the ownership of these items. In this regard, the following directions are being passed:- (a) …… (b) As far as items on the ground floor are concerned, the first LC report has categorically ascertained the items left behind by the Petitioner/Claimant. It is the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the said categorization is