[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Pidge Technologies Pvt Ltd vs Sliksync Technologies Pvt Ltd on 8 April, 2026
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
* 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.
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 to provide
accurate data, including rider information and cash on delivery payment
details, to facilitate operations and payments.
6. It is stated that the Respondent consistently failed to meet its
contractual obligations in providing the correct data sets and rider
information.
7. On 10.10.2025, the Petitioner specifically raised concerns through
email demonstrating incorrect information provided by the Respondent to
the Petitioner regarding discrepancies with respect to missing hub-wise
bifurcation, non-reflection of rider orders, etc. Further issues were conveyed
by the Petitioner to the Respondent vide emails dated 17.10.2025, and
19.11.2025.
8. It is stated that due to Respondent‟s operational lapses and lack of due
diligence, there were significant disruptions, including delays in salary
payments to riders, which resulted in a strike by riders.
9. It is stated that despite these issues the Petitioner continued to provide
its services, resulting in an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,09,81,622/- for the
months of September, October, and November 2025. The Petitioner sent a
legal notice dated 05.12.2025 and requested the Respondent to clear all
outstanding dues of the Petitioner within seven days of receipt of the
communication. It is stated that the Respondent instead of clearing the said
dues, issued a legal notice dated 23.12.2025, raising false allegations
regarding operational difficulties and GMV losses, which the Petitioner has
denied through a notice dated 19.01.2026.
10. Through the said notice dated 19.01.2026, the Petitioner replied to the
Respondent‟s allegations and reiterated its demand for the outstanding
payment and invoked arbitration under clause 8 of the Agreement. The
Respondent then issued reply to the said notice on 05.03.2026. The
Respondent claimed Rs. 4,50,00,000/- for losses suffered due to the
Petitioner‟s actions and an additional amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- collected as
delivery payments by the Petitioner.
11. The Petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking
appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the
non-payment of its invoices and the breaches of the Agreement by the
Respondent.
12. Material on record indicates that Clause 8 of the Agreement is the
arbitration clause. The relevant extract of the arbitration clause is as follows:
"8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION & JURISDICTION:
8.1 The Parties may move to resolve the dispute by
arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
8.2 The courts of Delhi shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction in respect of any matter or dispute connected
with this Agreement"
13. It is the case of the Petitioner that this Court has jurisdiction to
appoint an arbitrator as the Agreement provides that the Courts in Delhi
shall have exclusive jurisdiction which is applicable in context of arbitration.
The Counsel for the Petitioner relies on M/S Activitas Management Advisor
Private Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited, 2025 SCC
OnLine 3069.
14. Per contra, the Counsel for the Respondent states that in the absence
of a designated seat or venue, parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court
through an exclusive jurisdiction clause, especially when no cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the designating court. The
Counsel for the Respondent relies on Aryan Infrafreight Limited. v.
Signature Global India, 2025 SCCOnLine Del 8497, Aarka Sports
Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalsi BuildconPvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del
2077 and Kings Chariot v. Tarun Wadhwa, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4039.
15. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether this Court
can exercise jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in a situation where the
arbitration clause does not specify a seat or venue but stipulates that courts
at a particular place shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
16. A perusal of Clause 8 of the Agreement reveals that the parties have
agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration and have further stipulated
that Courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of
disputes arising out of the Agreement.
17. The Apex Court, in M/S Activitas Management Advisor Private
Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine 3069,
has held that where an exclusive jurisdiction clause is provided in the
context of dispute resolution through arbitration, the same must be construed
as indicative of the seat of arbitration.The relevant extract of the judgment is
as follows:
"3. Appellant, a management consultancy firm was
engaged by the respondent. The agreement that the
appellant and the respondent have entered into on
09.07.2023 has an arbitration clause and it also provides
that "client hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai in
connection with any dispute related to this letter or any
of the matters contemplated thereby". Clause 10 of the
Agreement is as under:
"10. Governing Law-This Letter shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with Indian Law.
Client hereby submits the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Mumbai High Courts located in Mumbai in
connection with any dispute related to this letter or
any of the matters contemplated hereby. In case,
any dispute arises between the parties with respect
to above-mentioned agreement. Parties hereby
agree to appoint sole Arbitrator by consent of
either parties as per section 11 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and can amicably resolve
their dispute as per the procedure laid down in
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before
approaching appropriate court for the same."
***
7. In Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries
Ltd.1, this Court observed that:
"18. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction
of the court at a particular place, only such court
will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter
and parties intended to exclude all other courts...
19... Since only the Orissa High Court will have
the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under
Section 11(6) of the Act, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside."
8. Though clause 10 does not use the expression „seat‟ or
„venue‟, we are of the opinion that the „jurisdiction‟ is
mentioned in the context of resolution of the disputes
through arbitration and as such the agreement between
the parties that, "client hereby submits to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Courts located in
Mumbai" must be understood in the context of
arbitration and therefore the seat of the arbitration must
be taken to be Mumbai."
18. In the opinion of this Court, the facts of the present case are squarely
covered by the aforesaid judgment, as the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at
New Delhi has been agreed upon by the parties in the context of arbitration
proceedings.
19. Accordingly, this Court holds that it has the jurisdiction to entertain
the present Petition and appoint an arbitrator. In view of the above, this
Court is inclined to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
arising between the parties.
20. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties and
there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement, this Court is inclined to
appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
21. However, it is open for the Respondent to raise the issue of
arbitrability of the present disputes before the learned Arbitrator by filing an
appropriate application for the same.
22. Accordingly, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Advocate, (Mob No:
9810400605) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the
disputes between the parties.
23. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi
International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and
regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the
Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
24. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure
under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act within two weeks
of entering the reference.
25. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator
on their merits, in accordance with law.
26. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression on the merits.
27. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with
pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
APRIL 08, 2026
Mt
