[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S Saptgiri Realty Through Its ... vs M/S Rolling Hills Villas And Resort Llp ... on 16 April, 2026
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 381/2025
M/S SAPTGIRI REALTY THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE AND SIGNATORY .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sonam Gupta and Mr.
Abhishek Mahajan, Advocates
versus
M/S ROLLING HILLS VILLAS AND RESORT LLP AND
ORS THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
AND SIGNATORY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shimpy Arman Sharma,
Ms. Priya Pachouri and Mr.
Kritik Rastogi, Advocates for
R-1 to 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 19961, read with Section 10(3) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeks the following reliefs:
"a. Direct the Respondents to declare the details of assets and bank
accounts owned by them;
b. direct Respondent to secure the amount in dispute i.e.
Rs.7,20,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) due
and payable as on 25.02.2025 along with interest with this Hon'ble
Court;
c. Pass directions for Attachment of Bank Account to the extent of
the outstanding amount of Rs.7,20,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore
Twenty Lakhs Only) due and payable as on 25.02.2025, in order to
secure the amount involved in dispute; and/or
d. The Auditor be appointed for rendition of accounts of the
Act
Respondent Company including all the Directors; and/or
e. The Respondents be called upon to deposit the entire outstanding
amount, before this Hon'ble Court in terms of the due amount and
the Petitioner be given liberty to withdraw the same on such terms
and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case; and/or
f. The Respondents / Guarantors be ordered to provide solvent
security within such time as this Court deems fit and proper to the
Petitioner to cover their entire claim in the sum of Rs.7,20,00,000/-
(Rupees Seven Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) due and payable; and/or
g. award the cost of this application, in favor of the Petitioner and
against the Respondent; and/or Any other orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case."
2. This Court takes note of the fact that the Memorandum of
Understanding/Brokerage Agreement dated 31.07.20232, entered
into between the parties, contains a Dispute Resolution Clause, being
Clause 143, which reads as under:
"14. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution
In the event of any dispute or differences arising between the
Parties herein, relating to the present Agreement or any term and
condition stipulated herein, the Parties herein shall endeavor to
settle the same by mutual discussion/Negotiations.
However, in case such claim or dispute or differences cannot be
settled through mutual discussion/negotiation in good faith, the
same shall be finally settled by reference to Arbitration of a sole
Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the Parties herein. The
Arbitration Proceedings shall be conducted under the provisions of
Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, duly amended upto date and
the decision of the Sole Arbitrator shall be final and English
language and the seat of Arbitration shall be New Delhi.
Any disputes arising from or relation to the present Agreement
shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of New
Delhi.The presentAgreement shall be governed by and constructed
in accordance with the laws of India."
3. Further, the material on record also reflects that Petitioner,
sought to invoke, under Section 21 of the Act, the aforestated
Agreement
Arbitration Clause
Arbitration Clause vide Legal Notice dated 05.04.20254. The said
Section 21 Notice was replied to by the Respondents vide a Letter
dated 17.05.2025, wherein the Respondents denied existence of any
valid or arbitrable dispute, and therefore rejected the invocation of
Arbitration.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the parties, at the
outset, submit that they are ad idem that instead of adjudicating the
present Petition on merits, the disputes inter se the parties may be
referred to Arbitration, for adjudication by a Sole Arbitrator.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, since the
parties have mutually consented to adjudication of their disputes by
way of Arbitration and in turn to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator,
the commencement of arbitral proceedings should not be unduly
delayed.
6. In this backdrop, considering the peculiar facts of the present
case and in the interest of expeditious adjudication of disputes, the
statutory requirement of filing a Petition under Section 11 of the Act,
for appointment of an Arbitrator, is dispensed with.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the matter
be referred to Arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of the
resolution of disputes inter se the parties.
8. The material on record indicates that the valuation of the
present dispute is approximately Rs. 7.2 Crores.
9. Accordingly, this Court hereby requests Hon'ble Mr. Justice
M.K. Hanjura (Retd.) (Mobile No. 9419180925), as the Sole
Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter
Section 21 Notice
se the parties.
10. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration
proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite
disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within a week
of entering into the reference.
11. The respective costs of Arbitration shall be borne equally by the
parties.
12. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be
decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance
with law.
13. Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy.
14. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the
learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e-
mail.
15. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 16, 2026/rk/DJ
