[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs V3S Infratech Limited on 19 January, 2026
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.01.2026
+ ARB.P. 964/2025
KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Kher and Mr. Manuj
Gautam, Advocates.
versus
V3S INFRATECH LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Praveen
Kumar Singh, Mr. Sujit Kumar
Singh, Md. Ziauddin Ahmad,
Mr. Abhishek Mehra and Ms.
Ankita Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
1. The present petition, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ["Act"], seeks the appointment of an
Arbitrator on the basis of an Agreement bearing reference No.
KEI/0050/0001488193 dated 13.02.2012 ["Agreement"] and the
alleged Arbitration Clause, namely, Clause A-5 of the said Agreement,
which reads as under:
"A-5) Arbitration
In the event of difference or dispute arising out of, under or in
connection with this agreement, over the rights of obligation of
parties hereto, the dispute or difference shall be referred to the
Arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by KONE Elevator
India Private Limited. The Venue of the Arbitration (sic) shall be at
Delhi shall have the jurisdiction in relation to the Arbitration and
the Provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall
be applicable to such Arbitration."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 964/2025 Page 1 of 4
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
11:12:38
2. However, as is manifest from the record and as is also admitted
by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the parties thereafter
entered into another Agreement in form of a work order dated
15.02.2012 ["Work Order"], and on which basis they have agreed to
govern the relationship between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the terms of the
Agreement dated 13.02.2012, would have to be read along with
Clauses 17 and 25 of the Work Order [Annexure P-1 of the Petition]
which, though dated 12.02.2012, is admittedly dated 15.02.2012. The
relevant clause of the said Work Order is herein under:
"17. It is agreed that in case of any dispute, discussion or any
matter relating to the Project, the sub-contractor shall ensure that
the work on the project does not suffer in any manner, and the item
of dispute shall be resolved by the two parties separately in an
amicable manner. For any kind of dispute, shall be dealt with
arbitration clause of India, which shall be held at New Delhi.
xxxxx
25. Your Final Agreement KEI/0050/0001488193 Final Agreement
dated 13.02.2012 (containing nineteen pages) is also forms part of
the material which should be matched with our T&C."
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that as
on the instant date there is no Agreement dated 13.02.2012 since the
same was only an offer inviting tender and not an Agreement. Further,
the Work Order which is wrongly dated 12.02.2012 and which is
actually dated 15.02.2012, is the actual agreement between the parties.
It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent
that the relevant Arbitration Clause is Clause 17 of the Work Order
and not Clause A-5 of the Agreement dated 13.02.2012 since the same
was merely an offer.
5. This Court has heard the parties and perused the record
carefully.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 964/2025 Page 2 of 4
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
11:12:38
6. This Court is of the opinion that it is indeed a valid objection of
the Respondent, that the Agreement referred to and the Arbitration
Clause relied upon by the Petitioner in the present petition is clearly
incorrect and as a result thereof the present petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that this is a
case of novation of Agreement and therefore will be governed by
paragraph no. 85 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning1. The relevant
paragraph of the Judgement is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:
"85. This Court further held that the Referral Court, while
exercising its powers under Sections 8 and 11, respectively, of the
1996 Act could exercise its powers to screen and knock down ex
facie meritless, frivolous and dishonest litigation so as to ensure
expeditious and efficient disposal at the referral stage: (Vidya
Drolia case [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2
SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] , SCC p. 119, para 148)
"148. Section 43(1) of the Arbitration Act states that the
Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it
applies to court proceedings. Sub-section (2) states that for
the purposes of the Arbitration Act and the Limitation Act,
arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the
date referred to in Section 21. Limitation law is procedural
and normally disputes, being factual, would be for the
arbitrator to decide guided by the facts found and the law
applicable. The court at the referral stage can interfere
only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-
barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. All
other cases should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for
decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case
of disputed "no-claim certificate" or defence on the plea
of novation and "accord and satisfaction". As observed
in Premium Nafta Products [Fili Shipping Co.
Ltd. v. Premium Nafta Products Ltd., 2007 Bus LR 1719 :
2007 UKHL 40 (HL)] , it is not to be expected that
commercial men while entering transactions inter se
would knowingly create a system which would require that
the court should first decide whether the contract should
1
(2024) 12 SCC 1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 964/2025 Page 3 of 4
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.01.2026
11:12:38
be rectified or avoided or rescinded, as the case may be,
and then if the contract is held to be valid, it would
require the arbitrator to resolve the issues that have
arisen.""
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, by this contention, seeks to
refute the contention of the Respondent and the understanding, as
between the parties, that the so-called "Final Agreement" dated
13.02.2012 was only a quotation, subsequent to which the parties also
entered into negotiations, and therefore, the same could not have
amounted to be an expression of the final terms and conditions as
between the parties.
9. This Court is of the view and as is manifest from the record, the
wrongly dated communication i.e., the Work Order, is the final
Agreement and is enforceable between the parties.
10. In view of the same, the argument that the Work Order would
constitute a novation of the earlier Agreement as between the parties
holds no water and is thereby rejected.
11. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner in the
present Petition has not invoked the Arbitration Clause in terms of the
only effective Agreement i.e., the Work Order dated 15.12.2012
(wrongly dated 12.12.2012) and as a consequence thereof, the present
petition is misconceived, and accordingly, stands dismissed.
12. The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any,
is disposed of in above-mentioned terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
JANUARY 19, 2026/nd/kr/dj
