This order does not decide whether the lease is valid, whether its termination was lawful, or whether the ₹2,36,58,209.84 demanded is payable. All rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability and preliminary objections, are left open for the arbitrator.
- Case
- DSV Contracts Logistics Private Limited v. Arshiya Northern FTWZ Limited and Others
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:9881
- Bench
- Manoj Jain
- Judgment by
- Manoj Jain
- Case numbers
- O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 520/2026; I.A. 30644/2026
- Outcome
- Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 disposed of by consent: disputes referred to arbitration, sole arbitrator appointed, and the petition treated as a Section 17 application before the arbitrator.
Lease dispute goes to arbitration; interim plea follows it
The Delhi High Court has referred the disputes between DSV Contracts Logistics Private Limited and Arshiya Northern FTWZ Limited to arbitration and appointed Justice Rekha Palli, a former judge of the Court, as sole arbitrator. Justice Manoj Jain disposed of DSV's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by consent on 4 November 2026.
The Court directed that the petition itself be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act, and requested the arbitrator to decide it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks. The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and governed by its rules, with the arbitrator's fee fixed under the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules, 2018.
A 73,500 sq. ft. warehouse, a terminated lease, and a ₹2.36 crore demand
DSV sought urgent interim protection of its rights, possession, access and continued operations at Warehouse No. 52, admeasuring approximately 73,500 sq. ft., situated at Arshiya Northern FTWZ, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, under a registered lease agreement dated 24 May 2024. An earlier agreement between the parties dated 8 April 2024 had not been registered.
DSV's case was that the respondent had terminated the lease by a notice dated 23 October 2026 and demanded ₹2,36,58,209.84 as outstanding, and that after the termination it was being restrained and obstructed from even using the premises. DSV said it had replied to an earlier demand notice dated 23 June 2026 from the Resolution Professional concerned, raising its own claim and giving notice of the existence of a dispute.
Respondent disputed the lease itself — then consented to arbitration
The respondent, represented by senior counsel on advance notice, disputed various averments in the petition. It submitted that the lease deed purportedly executed on 24 May 2024 had no validity or sanctity in law, among other reasons because it had been signed on behalf of the lessor by a person who was not authorised and competent to execute it.
Both agreements contained an arbitration clause. Clause 19 provided for disputes to be resolved first by conciliatory talks between authorised representatives and, failing that, by reference to arbitration by a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with Delhi as the seat and venue and the courts in Delhi having exclusive jurisdiction.
After some arguments, senior counsel for the respondents submitted, on instructions and without prejudice to the respondents' rights and contentions including preliminary objections, that they would have no objection if a sole arbitrator was appointed to consider the alleged disputes, and that the respondent might lodge a counter-claim. Both sides waived their rights to first exhaust the conciliatory process and did away with the requirement of a formal notice under Section 21 of the Act.
What the order directs
The Court recorded that, keeping in mind the submissions and the no-objection to the appointment of an arbitrator, and with the consent of both parties, the petition stood disposed of with directions that the disputes concerning the agreement or agreements be referred to arbitration, that Justice Rekha Palli be appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate all such disputes, and that the arbitration be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
The arbitrator was requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act before entering upon the reference. All rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of the claim and any other preliminary objections, as well as the merits of any claim or counter-claim, were expressly left open for adjudication by the arbitrator. The petitioner was directed to report to the Coordinator of DIAC within two working days, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the arbitrator.
BANTHRY ANALYSISWhy the interim plea travels with the reference
The operative device in this order is the conversion of the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application. Section 9 lets a party seek interim measures from the court before or during arbitral proceedings; Section 17 lets the arbitral tribunal itself grant interim measures once it is constituted. Where the parties agree to a reference and an arbitrator is appointed in the same order, the court routinely hands the interim-protection question to the tribunal rather than deciding it itself, because the tribunal will hear the merits in any event.
Two features of the order show how consent shapes the result. First, the respondent's challenge to the lease's validity did not block the reference: the Court left arbitrability and all preliminary objections open for the arbitrator, so the validity question will be decided as part of the arbitration, not as a precondition to it. Second, the three-week target for the Section 17 decision is a request, not a binding deadline — the order says the arbitrator is 'humbly requested' to decide expeditiously — so DSV's protection depends on how quickly the tribunal is constituted and hears the application.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order illustrates three practical points about arbitration practice. First, a Section 9 petition is commonly used to get urgent protection and an arbitrator appointed in one proceeding. Second, the waiver of conciliation and of the Section 21 notice shows that the Act's pre-arbitration steps are procedural, not jurisdictional, where both sides agree to skip them. Third, the Section 12 declaration — in which the arbitrator discloses circumstances affecting independence or impartiality — is a mandatory step before the arbitrator enters upon the reference, and the Court's direction to furnish it is standard in appointment orders.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court convert the Section 9 petition into a Section 17 application instead of deciding interim protection itself?
- Which facts about the lease did the respondent dispute, and why did that not prevent the reference to arbitration?
- What directions did the Court give about the arbitrator's declaration, the DIAC, and the time for deciding the interim plea?
