Awoke India Foundation v. Identivetech and Ors

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'A&C Act') seeks appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶2The disputes arise in context of a Procurement Agreement dated

19.04.2024 executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The same contains an arbitration clause as under:- " This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the law of India. In the event of any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to any provision of this Agreement or the interpretation, enforceability, performance, breach, termination of validity hereof, the parties hereto shall attempt in good faith to amicably resolve the dispute. Article 10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

Any dispute which cannot be resolved within 45 (forty-five) days as from the date such dispute has arisen shall be resolved finally and exclusively by arbitration in New Delhi, India in accordance with Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Both the parties shall mutually appoint arbitrator who would preside over the proceedings."

¶3In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd, (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377, Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 547, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 INSC 532, and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re,2023 SCC OnLine SC 1666, there is no impediment in constituting an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶4Respective counsel for the parties jointly request that an independent Sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶5Accordingly, at jointly prayed, Mr. Akshath Indusekhar (Mob. No. + 91 6363945239) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶6The respondent shall be at liberty to raise preliminary objections as regards arbitrability/jurisdiction, if any, which shall be decided by the Sole Arbitrator in accordance with law.

¶7Let arbitration take place under the aegis of and as per the Rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

¶8All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator on merits, in accordance with law.

¶9Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶10The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 18, 2026/r

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 # CNR No.DLHC010477612025 + AWOKE INDIA FOUNDATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aviral Saxena, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Paritosh Goyal, Advocates. versus IDENTIVETECH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shailender Kumar Nirmal and Mr. Surya Pratap, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA