Mr. Arun Kumar Rai vs M/S Protect Ip Solutions Llp & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 21, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1272796

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1272796
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Decided On: May 21, 2026
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.)/115/2025
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue: Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mr. Arun Kumar Rai

Advocate Ms. Samprikta Ghoshal, Ms. Mahima Malhotra, Mr. Lakshay Aggarwal, Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Ms. Ambareen, Ms. Sanjana, Mr. Zaki

Respondent

M/S Protect Ip Solutions Llp & Anr.

Excerpt

.....vaidyanathanshankar % judgement (oral)1. the present petition has been filed under section 14(1) and (2)read with section 15(2) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 seeking termination of mandate of the learned arbitral tribunal due to de facto incapacity of the presiding learned arbitrator and appointment of substitute arbitrator(s).2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that since the mediation proceedings have failed, this court may o.m.p. (t) (comm.) 115/2025 page 1 of 3 appoint a learned arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes as between the parties.3. material on record indicates that the dispute is stated to be for an amount of approximately rs. 5 crores.4. the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter be referred to an arbitrator under the aegis of the delhi international arbitration centre [“diac”].5. accordingly, ms. justice mukta gupta, former judge of this court (mobile no.9650788600) is appointed as the sole arbitrator.6. the arbitration would take place under the aegis of the delhi international arbitration centre (diac).7. the learned sole arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures as required under section 12(2) of the act within a week of entering of reference.8. the arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the diac and would abide by its rules and regulations. the learned arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the diac.9. the parties shall share the learned sole arbitrator’s fee and arbitral costs equally.10. all rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.11. the registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the learned arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e- o.m.p. (t) (comm.) 115/2025 page 2 of 3.....

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 115/2025 MR. ARUN KUMAR RAI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Samprikta Ghoshal, Ms. Mahima Malhotra and Mr. Lakshay Aggarwal, Advocates.

versus

M/S PROTECT IP SOLUTIONS LLP & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Ms. Ambareen, Ms. Sanjana and Mr. Zaki, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 14(1) and (2)

read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal due to de facto incapacity of the presiding learned Arbitrator and appointment of substitute Arbitrator(s).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are ad idem that since the mediation proceedings have failed, this Court may O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 115/2025 Page 1 of 3 appoint a learned Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes as between the parties.

3. Material on record indicates that the dispute is stated to be for an amount of approximately Rs. 5 Crores.

4. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter be referred to an Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [“DIAC”].

5. Accordingly, Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta, Former Judge of this Court (Mobile No.9650788600) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

6. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

7. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act within a week of entering of reference.

8. The Arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

9. The parties shall share the learned Sole Arbitrator’s fee and arbitral costs equally.

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

11. The Registry is directed to send a receipt of this order to the learned arbitrator through all permissible modes, including through e- O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 115/2025 Page 2 of 3 mail.

12. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties.

13. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending application(s), is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. MAY 21, 2026/nd/va O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 115/2025 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Mr. Arun Kumar Rai vs M/S Protect Ip Solutions Llp & Anr. Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar