IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARB. PETITION. _________ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Indu Dawar
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Dawar,
R/o ______________ …APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. BLS International Services Ltd.,
Having it registered office at ________
2. Sh. Pravin Kumar, Promoter-Director,
Address________________ …RESPONDENT
PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER SECTION 11(6)
OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (‘1996 ACT’) FOR
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED
24.06.2021
1. Provision under which the Application has been filed:
Section 11(5) & 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Name of the Applicant with complete address:
Mrs. Indu Dewar
R/O ______________
3. Name of the respondent to the Arbitration Agreement with complete address:
i. BLS International Services Ltd.,
Having its registered office address at ___________
Email id ___________
ii. Sh. Pravin Kumar, Promoter-Director,
Address______________
Email ID _____________
4. Name and address of the Arbitrators, if any, already appointed by the parties:
Arbitrator has not yet been appointed.
5. Name and address of the person or institution, if any, to whom any function has
been entrusted by the parties to the arbitration:
None
6. Qualification required, if any, of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties:
None
7. A brief statement describing the general nature of the disputes and the point of
issue is given as under:
7.1 That the Petitioner is an individual investor and shareholder who entered into a
Share Purchase Agreement (hereinafter “SPA”) dated 24.06.2021 with
Respondent No. 1, BLS International Services Ltd., for sale of shares held in its
subsidiary entities. The Petitioner resides at the above-mentioned address. The
Respondents are parties to the said SPA and are jointly and severally liable for its
performance.
7.2 That the Clause ____ of the SPA contains an arbitration clause which stipulates
that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the SPA shall be referred to
arbitration in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(SIAC) Rules, with the seat of arbitration at Singapore.
7.3 That the disputes have arisen between the parties regarding non-payment of the
agreed consideration for shares, misrepresentation, and siphoning of corporate
assets by the Respondents. The SPA has been materially breached by the
Respondents.
7.4 That despite the arbitration clause, the Respondents have failed to take steps to
commence arbitration or appoint an arbitrator. The Petitioner has communicated
her willingness to resolve the dispute through arbitration but no consensus on
arbitration has been reached.
7.5 Although the seat of arbitration is in Singapore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
BALCO VS KAISER ALUMINIUM, (2012)9SCC552, and subsequent
decisions have held that Indian Courts retain jurisdiction under Section 9 and
Section 11, where parties or cause of action are situated in India, and no effective
steps have been taken under SIAC Rules. Further, the Delhi High Court has
exercised jurisdiction in related interim relief matter (OMP(I)(COMM)426/2023)
filed by the Petitioner in conformity with Section 2(2) of ‘1996 Act’, thus
affirming the Indian nexus of the dispute.
7.6 The cause of action arose in India where the Respondents are situated, where
contractual obligations were to be partially performed. Multiple requests for
compliance and appointment of arbitrator have failed.
PRAYER:
In light of the above, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:
a. Appoint an independent and impartial sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising
out of Share Purchase Agreement dated 24.06.2021, in accordance with the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;
b. Direct the Respondents to participate the arbitration proceedings so constituted;
c. Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed just and necessary in the interest
of justice.
APPLICANT
Place:
Applicant
Advocate’s name
and particulars:
