High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 11 DEL CK 0086

Unthinkable Solutions LLP vs Essumo Technologies Private Limited

Delhi High Court · Decided on 2 November 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Prakash Shukla, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
ARB.P. 1524/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

2.

Both parties are ad idem that the matter may be referred to arbitration.

3.

It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the scope of enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement2.

4.

In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a valid arbitration clause between the parties.

5.

Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no impediment in appointing a Sole Arbitrator.

6.

The Respondent is also not disputing the arbitration clause. He only submits that the Arbitrator has to be appointed by Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”).

7.

Accordingly, DIAC is directed to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties within one week. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference within three weeks from the date of appointment by the DIAC.

8.

The learned Sole Arbitrator will proceed to the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within three weeks of entering reference.

9.

The arbitration shall be carried under the rules and aegis of DIAC. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

10.

It shall be open to the parties to raise all pleas, including objection as to arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the learned Sole Arbitrator who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

11.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall adjudicate the disputes independently and on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present order.

12.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Footnotes

  1. 1.“Act” hereinafter
  2. 2.SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754