Delhi High Court
M/S Wiretel Solution Pvt.Ltd vs M/S Annu Infra Construct India Pvt. Ltd. ... on 20 November, 2025
$~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
FAO(OS) (COMM) 271/2024
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
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 after
October 2015, unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator is not
permissible. However, in the present case, the Arbitrator was
nominated by the Respondent on 27.11.2019.
6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondent
submits that the Appellant had participated before the learned
Arbitrator and did not object to his jurisdiction. Learned counsel
further submits that the learned Arbitrator was nominated on the
request of the Appellant and the Appellant never objected to the
Award on the ground that the Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by
the Appellant.
7. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. In the opinion of this Bench, it is not appropriate to make any
observations which affect the merits of the case while passing daily
FAO(OS) (COMM) 271/2024
15:40:56
orders. As is evident, the Petition under Section 34 of the AC Act is
still pending adjudication.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the present Appeal is
disposed of with the observation that the learned Single Judge will
proceed to decide the Petition under Section 34 of the AC Act
comprehensively and uninfluenced by the observation made in the
Impugned Order.
10. The parties, along with their respective counsel, are directed to
appear before the learned Single Judge on 05.12.2025 i.e. the date
already fixed.
11. The pending application also stands closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2025
jai/hr
FAO(OS) (COMM) 271/2024
15:40:56
