[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Gaurav Kukreja vs M/S Earthz Urban Spaces Private Limited ... on 4 February, 2026
$~2 and 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.02.2026
+ ARB.P. 1486/2024
GAURAV KUKREJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior
Advocate along with Ms.
Aarohi Malik, Mr. Arjun Malik,
Mr. Kharanshu Rana, Ms.
Akshara Popli and Ms.
Archisha Satyarthi, Advocates.
versus
M/S EARTHZ URBAN SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr.
Naved Ahmed, Mr. Akash Raja
Sahib and Ms. Tanushka
Agrawal, Advocates.
3
+ O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2025
GAURAV KUKREJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior
Advocate along with Ms.
Aarohi Malik, Mr. Kharanshu
Rana, Mr. Arjun Malik, Ms.
Akshara Popli and Ms.
Archisha Satyarthi, Advocates.
versus
M/S EARTHZ URBAN SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr.
Naved Ahmed, Mr. Akash Raja
Sahib and Ms. Tanushka
Agrawal, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
ARB.P. 1486/2024 Page 1 of 4
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.02.2026
15:15:15
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
%
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2025
1. The present petition, filed under Section 15(2) read with Section
14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], seeks
substitution of the learned Arbitrator, Ms. Priya Kumar, Senior
Advocate, appointed by the Order dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned
Co-ordinate bench of this Court in ARB.P. 1486/2024.
2. The said substitution is being sought in view of the fact that the
said Arbitrator has recused herself from the matter.
3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
Respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the
substitution of the said Arbitrator by any person chosen by this Court.
4. Hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and
in order to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes, this
Court deems it appropriate to substitute the arbitrator and
appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri (Retd.) (e-mail :
).
5. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the DIAC
and would abide by its rules and regulations.
6. 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 of reference.
7. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees in
accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may otherwise
be agreed to between the parties and the learned sole Arbitrator.
8. The parties shall share the learned sole Arbitrator's fee and
arbitral costs equally.
9. 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.
10. Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy.
All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved.
11. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the
learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e-
mail.
12. Accordingly, the petition, being O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 41/2025,
along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
13. The present petition stood disposed of in terms of the Order
dated 18.12.2024.
14. Subsequently, I.A. No. 6410/2025, filed by the Respondents
seeking modification of the said Order dated 18.12.2024, also came to
be dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 21.03.2025.
15. Consequently, after passing of the aforesaid orders, no
substantive issue remained pending for adjudication between the
parties in the present petition.
16. Thereafter, the arbitrator appointed pursuant to the Order dated
18.12.2024 recused herself from the proceedings and communicated
her withdrawal to the Registry of this Court. In view of the said
communication, the matter was placed before the Court on
29.05.2025, pursuant to an office note
17. The said office note has remained pending consideration since
then.
18. In the meantime, O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 41/2025 came to be
filed seeking substitution of the earlier appointed arbitrator on account
of her recusal.
19. Since the issue relating to substitution of the arbitrator has
already been considered and decided in the preceding paragraphs
while disposing of O.M.P.(T)(COMM.) 41/2025, no adjudication
survives in the present petition.
20. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the office note stands
disposed of.
21. A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected
matter.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
FEBRUARY 04, 2026/tk/kr
