ARB.P./1351/2025 of SDC- I BUILDING ASSOCIATION Vs MR. CHAITANYA PALIT
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 1 of 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th JANUARY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ ARB.P. 1345/2025
SDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi
Sood, Ms. Muskan Katyayan and Mr.
Karan Chhibber, Advocates
versus
MR. PAWAN J PURI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohan Kumar, Ms. Neetu Singh
and Mr. Vishesh Tyagi, Advs.
+ ARB.P. 1346/2025
SDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi
Sood, Ms. Muskan Katyayan and Mr.
Karan Chhibber, Advocates
versus
MR. RAMAN MALIK .....Respondent
Through: Appearance not given.
+ ARB.P. 1351/2025
SDC- I BUILDING ASSOCIATION
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi
Sood, Ms. Muskan Katyayan and Mr.
Karan Chhibber, Advocates
versus
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 2 of 14
MR. CHAITANYA PALIT
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arsh and Mr. Sanjay Sharma,
Advs.
+ ARB.P. 1352/2025
SDC-1 BUILDING ASSOCIATION
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Meenakshi
Sood, Ms. Muskan Katyayan and Mr.
Karan Chhibber, Advocates
versus
MRS. UMA MALIK
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The present batch of Petitions has been filed under Section 1 1(6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as „the
Arbitration Act‟ ) for appointment of the Arbitrator to adjudicate on the
disputes which have arisen between the parties under various Mai ntenance
Agreements.
2. The Petitioner herein, which is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Delhi Apartment Ownersh ip
Act,1984 is concerned with the maintaining the common areas and s ervices
in Som Dutt Chamber-1, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi- 110066 ( hereinafter
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 3 of 14
referred to as „the Building‟ ). The Respondent in each of the Petition is the
flat owner in the Building. For the sake of convenience, each of th e flat
owner in the Petitions tagged shall be collectively referred to as Respondents
as the batch of Petitions are being disposed of by way of a commo n
judgment.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondents entered into
Maintenance Agreements with M/s Bhikaji Maintenance Combine
(hereinafter referred to as „the BMC‟ ), whereby the Respondents agreed to
pay the maintenance charges for the proper maintenance of Common Areas
of the Building, including its security, running/maintenan ce of lifts, power
back up, housekeeping as well as for the operation of common services etc.
4. The Respondent in ARB.P.1345/2025 signed the Maintenance
Agreement on 22.05.1986, Respondent in ARB.P.1346/2025 signed t he
Maintenance Agreement on 31.08.1990, Respondent in ARB.P.1351/20 25
signed the Maintenance Agreement on 01.06.1987 and Respondent in
ARB.P.1352/2025 signed the Maintenance Agreement on 26.04.1997.
5. Clause 11 of the said Agreements contains an Arbitration Clause.
6. It is stated that the Petitioner/Society was involved in coordi nating
with the builder being SDB Infrastructure Private Limited ( hereinafter
referred as „the Builder‟ ) and the flat owner/allotees, i.e., the Respondents
herein for the smooth functioning and maintenance of the common areas and
services of the Building.
7. It is stated that the Builder filed a Writ Petition being W.P( C)
684/2002 before this Court challenging an Order passed by th e Delhi
Development Authority ( hereinafter referred as „the DDA‟ ) directing the
Builder to hand-over the possession of Plot No.5, District Cen tre, Bhikaji
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 4 of 14
Cama Place, New Delhi, with the superstructure standing thereon to th e
DDA. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated
29.09.2016 with the following directions:
“22. I therefore dispose of this petition with the
following directions:-
(i) The petitioner to within two months hereof deposit
with the respondent DDA all amounts by way of
ground rent or otherwise collected by it from the
owners/occupiers of flats/spaces in the aforesaid
building and the respondent DDA to accept the same.
(ii) The petitioner to at the time of making the
aforesaid deposit also file an affidavit with the
respondent DDA to the effect that it is not holding an y
amount whether by way of ground rent or otherwise
collected from the owners/occupiers of flats/spaces in
the aforesaid building and the petitioner is restrain ed
from hereafter collecting any amount towards ground
rent or otherwise from the owners/occupiers of
flats/spaces in the aforesaid building.
(iii) The respondent DDA to within two months hereof
carry out a detailed survey of the building aforesaid
and to have prepared detailed drawings of the building
including of each floor of the building, identifying by
measurement the flats/spaces therein and the name and
other particulars of the persons who are claiming to
own the same.
(iv) The petitioner to within two months aforesaid file
another affidavit with the respondent DDA giving the
names and particulars of the persons who as per the
record of the petitioner are the purchasers/owners of
different flats/spaces in the aforesaid multi-storied
building.
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 5 of 14
(v) The respondent DDA to thereafter, in accordance
with the prevalent Rules & Regulations, Bye-laws
assess which parts of the building are unauthorised or
in misuse and whether such unauthorised
construction/misuse can be regularized/condoned and
if so on what terms and to intimate the owner of such
flats/spaces having unauthorised construction or the
misuse, of the same and to thereafter take action in
accordance with law with respect thereto.
(vi) The person/s affected by the action aforesaid of the
respondent DDA shall have their remedies in law
against the petitioner as well as against the respondent
DDA.
(vii) The respondent DDA to thereafter also apportion
its dues with respect to the aforesaid building and/or
construction thereon amongst the different flats/spaces
as per area thereof and to raise a demand on the
owners of individual flats/spaces and if they fail to p ay
the same to resume such space/flat and to deal with the
same as may be deemed fit by the respondent DDA.
(viii) The concerned competent authority under the
Apartment Act of the respondent DDA to also initiate
steps in conjunction with the owners of flats/spaces in
the aforesaid building to form an Association of
Apartment Owners within the meaning of the
Apartment Act aforesaid to take over the maintenance
of common areas and services in the building and the
petitioner is directed to do the needful in that regard.
(ix) The respondent DDA to in accordance with O.S.
Bajpai supra also initiate steps for execution of deed of
apartments in favour of the purchasers of flats/spa ces
in the aforesaid building who have paid all their dues
to the respondent DDA and the petitioner is directed to
co-operate in all respects in that regard.”
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 6 of 14
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is stated that pursuant to the above directions of this Court, the
Petitioner herein started negotiating with the Builder for finali zing the terms
and conditions of the handover agreement. It is stated that upo n finalization
of the terms and conditions, an Agreement and a Deed of Assignm ent dated
12.07.2024 was executed between the Builder, the BMC and the Petitioner
herein wherein the right to maintain the common areas and servi ces and
collect the maintenance charges from the flat owners of the Buildi ng,
including the past and future charges, was handed over to the Petitioner
Society herein w.e.f 01.04.2024.
9. It is stated that the flat owners/Respondents of the Buildi ng were
informed about the Agreement dated 12.07.2024. It is stated d emand notices
were sent by the Petitioner/Society to the defaulting flat
owners/Respondents seeking payment of the outstanding charges. It is stated
that when the outstanding charges were not paid by the Resp ondents, the
Petitioner herein sent a Notice under Section 21 of the Arbitrat ion Act in
accordance with Clause 11 of the Maintenance Agreement which was
entered into between the Respondents and the BMC. Since the Responde nts
failed to reply to the said Notice, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present Petitions.
10. Notice in the present Petitions was issued on 02.09.2025 and time was
granted to the Respondents to file replies. Even though replie s have been
filed, however, as per the office noting, the same still are lying u nder
objection and have not been brought on record. Be that as it may, this Court
shall proceed to adjudicate upon the Petitions in light of the rival contentions
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 7 of 14
advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner places reliance on
Clause 11 of the Maintenance Agreement which was entered into b y the
Respondents, in their individual capacity, with the BMC. Relev ant Clauses
of the Maintenance Agreement reads as under:
“ AGREEMENT
Articles of Agreement made at New Delhi this 22 nd day
of May 1985/86 between M/s. Bhikaiji Maintenance
Combine, having its office at Som Datt Chambers-1, 5-
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 065 (hereinafter
celled B.M.C. which expression, unless be repugnant to
its context or meaning thereof shall include its
successors and assigns ) of the ONE PART and M/S.
Sunehri Lal Tej Prakash (P) Ltd. and individual
(s)/HUF/Partnership Firm/Company (hereinafter
referred to as the Buyer' which expression shall, unless
it be repugnant to its context or meaning thereof, be
deemed to include his/her/their legal heirs, assigns,
legal representatives) of the OTHER PART.
Whereas the Buyer has entered into an Agreement with
M/s. Som Datt Builders (P) Ltd., having its Registered
Office at 8 Acharya Jagdish Ch. Bose Road, Calcutta-
700017 and Administrative Office at 56. Community
Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065
(hereinafter referred to as the Promoter') under which
the Buyer has agreed to buy flat/Shop/Store No. UG-05
B on UG Floor hereinafter referred to as "the Flat in
the building named "Som Datt Chambers-1' built on
Plot No. 5, Bhikaiji Coma Place, New Delhi under the
terms and conditions set out in the said Agreement.
And Whereas under clause 18 of the said Agreement
the Promoter has appointed M/s. Bhikaiji Maintenance
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 8 of 14
Combine as its nominee service agents and has
entrusted to them, on a permanent basis, the work of
the preservation, maintenance and upkeep of the
aforesaid Building, operation of common services
therein, supply of Water and also maintenance of
common spaces, lifts, fire fighting equipments etc, to
which the Buyer has agreed and has also agreed to
execute and sign a separate Agreement with the said
B.M.C. containing the terms and conditions and
obligations under which 8.M.C. will provide and
render their services.
And Whereas in pursuance of the said Agreement this
Agreement is being entered into between the Buyer and
B.M.C. on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
*****
11. Both parties to this Agreement namely, the Buyer
and the B.M.C. agree and bind themselves that in the
event of any dispute relating or connected with
(howsoever remote) this Agreement or in respect of
the non-payment of bills or interest due or
interpretation of any clause of this Agreement, the
same shall be referred to the Promoter or Its nominee
for arbitration whose decision will be binding on both
the parties and shall be carried out by them as the
final adjudication of the said dispute.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P(C)
684/2002, the Petitioner herein entered into an Agreement with t he Builder
and the BMC under which the right to claim maintenance from t he flat
owners/Respondents has been assigned to the Petitioner. Relyi ng upon the
same, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there exists a valid
arbitration agreement between the Petitioner and Respondents.
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 9 of 14
13. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that there
is no valid Arbitration Agreement between the Petitioner and the
Respondents as the Respondents have not entered into any agreem ent with
the Petitioner neither for the purpose of maintenance charges nor for any
other obligation. He, therefore, states that none of the ingredi ents of Section
7 of the Arbitration Act are made out and, therefore, the present Petitio n is
not maintainable.
14. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
15. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondents entered into a
Maintenance Agreement with the BMC, which includes the successors and
assigns of BMC. The BMC, Builder and Petitioner herein, later entered into
an Agreement and Deed of Assignment dated 12.07.2024.
16. At this stage, it is pertinent to reproduce Section 7 of the Arbitration
Act which reads as under:
“Section 7. Arbitration agreement.
(1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an
agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all o r
certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship,
whether contractual or not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an
arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a
separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is
contained in
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 10 of 14
(a) a document signed by the parties;
(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or
other means of telecommunication [including
communication through electronic means] which
provide a record of the agreement; or
(c) an exchange of statements of claim and
defence in which the existence of the agreement is
alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
(5) The reference in a contract to a document
containing an arbitration clause constitutes an
arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and
the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause
part of the contract.”
17. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that since the Petitioner is an
assignee of BMC and the Maintenance Agreement entered into between the
Respondents and the BMC contained an Arbitration Clause wherein the
Respondents submitted themselves to arbitration, there is a vali d and
existing Arbitration Agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents.
18. The Apex Court in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements und er
Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re , (2024) 6 SCC 1 , has observed
as under:-
“165. The legislature confined the scope of reference
under Section 11(6-A) to the examination of the
existence of an arbitration agreement. The use of the
term “examination” in itself connotes that the scope of
the power is limited to a prima facie determination.
Since the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, the
requirement of “existence” of an arbitration
agreement draws effect from Section 7 of the
Arbitration Act. In Duro Felguera [Duro Felguera,
S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 :
(2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764] , this Court held that the
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 11 of 14
Referral Courts only need to consider one aspect to
determine the existence of an arbitration agreement —
whether the underlying contract contains an
arbitration agreement which provides for arbitration
pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between
the parties to the agreement. Therefore, the scope of
examination under Section 11(6-A) should be
confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement
on the basis of Section 7. Similarly, the validity of an
arbitration agreement, in view of Section 7, should be
restricted to the requirement of formal validity such
as the requirement that the agreement be in writing.
This interpretation also gives true effect to the
doctrine of competence-competence by leaving the
issue of substantive existence and validity of an
arbitration agreement to be decided by Arbitral
Tribunal under Section 16. We accordingly clarify
the position of law laid down in Vidya Drolia [Vidya
Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 :
(2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] in the context of Section 8
and Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
166. The burden of proving the existence of arbitration
agreement generally lies on the party seeking to rely
on such agreement. In jurisdictions such as India,
which accept the doctrine of competence-competence,
only prima facie proof of the existence of an
arbitration agreement must be adduced before the
Referral Court. The Referral Court is not the
appropriate forum to conduct a mini-trial by allowing
the parties to adduce the evidence in regard to the
existence or validity of an arbitration agreement. The
determination of the existence and validity of an
arbitration agreement on the basis of evidence ought
to be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. This position of law
can also be gauged from the plain language of the
statute.
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 12 of 14
167. Section 11(6-A) uses the expression “examination
of the existence of an arbitration agreement”. The
purport of using the word “ examination” connotes
that the legislature intends that the Referral Court
has to inspect or scrutinise the dealings between the
parties for the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Moreover, the expression “examination” does not
connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry. [
P. Ramanatha Aiyar, The Law Lexicon (2nd Edn.,
1997) 666.] On the other hand, Section 16 provides
that the Arbitral Tribunal can “rule” on its
jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of an
arbitration agreement. A “ruling” connotes
adjudication of disputes after admitting evidence from
the parties. Therefore, it is evident that the Referral
Court is only required to examine the existence of
arbitration agreements, whereas the Arbitral Tribunal
ought to rule on its jurisdiction, including the issu es
pertaining to the existence and validity of an
arbitration agreement. A similar view was adopted by
this Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh
Optifibre Ltd. [Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh
Optifibre Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234]”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Similarly, the Apex Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish
Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, has observed as under:-
“122. Once an arbitration agreement exists between
parties, then the option of approaching the civil court
becomes unavailable to them. In such a scenario, if the
parties seek to raise a dispute, they necessarily have to
do so before the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral
tribunal, in turn, can only be constituted as per the
procedure agreed upon between the parties. However,
if there is a failure of the agreed upon procedure, then
the duty of appointing the arbitral tribunal falls up on
the referral court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. If
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 13 of 14
the referral court, at this stage, goes beyond the scope
of enquiry as provided under the section and examines
the issue of “accord and satisfaction”, then it would
amount to usurpation of the power which the parties
had intended to be exercisable by the arbitral tribunal
alone and not by the national courts. Such a scenario
would impeach arbitral autonomy and would not fit
well with the scheme of the Act, 1996.
*****
125. We are also of the view that ex-facie frivolity and
dishonesty in litigation is an aspect which the arbit ral
tribunal is equally, if not more, capable to decide upon
the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
parties. We say so because the arbitral tribunal has the
benefit of going through all the relevant evidence and
pleadings in much more detail than the referral court.
If the referral court is able to see the frivolity in the
litigation on the basis of bare minimum pleadings, then
it would be incorrect to doubt that the arbitral tribu nal
would not be able to arrive at the same inference, most
likely in the first few hearings itself, with the benefi t of
extensive pleadings and evidentiary material.”
20. Since it is well-settled legal position that referral courts must normally
follow the policy of „when in doubt, refer‟ and since disputes have
undoubtedly arisen between the parties, this Court is inclin ed to appoint an
Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
21. Accordingly, Ms. Mehak Nakra, Advocate (Mob. No: 987114582) is
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disp utes between the
parties.
22. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi
International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rul es and
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified
ARB.P. 1345/2025 etc. Page 14 of 14
regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as p er the
Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
23. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure
under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within two weeks of entering on
reference.
24. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to t he
claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator
on their merits, in accordance with law.
25. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construe d as an
expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
26. It is further made clear that the observations made in this Order are
squarely limited to the appointment of an Arbitrator. Needles s to state, it is
open for the Respondents to urge its contention regarding arbi trability,
jurisdiction etc. before the learned Arbitrator.
27. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, along wit h
pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JANUARY 13, 2026
Rahul
Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:16.01.2026
17:39:31
Signature Not Verified