G4S Security Systems INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Parnika Commercial And Estates PVT. LTD.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, G4S Security Systems India Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from two invoices dated 05.10.2023 and 01.01.2024. The arbitration clause was part of the work order. The petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated 22.04.2025. The respondent, Parnika Commercial and Estates Pvt. Ltd., admitted the arbitration clause but disagreed on the arbitrator's name. During proceedings, the respondent pointed out an incorrect name in the tax invoices, stating "Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd." instead of the correct name. The petitioner clarified this was a typographical error, and the correct GST number was used, with input tax credit taken by the respondent, which was not disputed.
Held
The Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the work order was executed in Delhi. Regarding the discrepancy in the respondent's name in the tax invoices, the Court accepted the petitioner's explanation that it was a typographical error. The respondent's admission that the correct GST number was used and input tax credit was taken, coupled with their agreement to implead "Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd." as a party, indicated that the substantive dispute was amenable to arbitration. Since there was no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration clause, the Court found no impediment to appointing an arbitrator. The Court allowed the petition, referring the dispute to Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate, to act as the Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). All rights and contentions of the parties were left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator. The Court also directed that respondent no. 2 be served according to DIAC rules.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given that the work order was executed in Delhi? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the work order was executed in Delhi, establishing the Court's territorial jurisdiction. Respondent's argument: The respondent did not dispute the territorial jurisdiction. 2. Whether the typographical error in the name of the respondent in the tax invoices, specifically mentioning "Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd." instead of "Parnika Commercial and Estates Pvt. Ltd.", vitiates the arbitration proceedings or the appointment of an arbitrator? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the incorrect name was a typographical error, but the correct GST number was provided, and the respondent had availed input tax credit, indicating no prejudice. Respondent's argument: The respondent initially raised the discrepancy in the name but agreed to proceed if "Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd." was also impleaded as a party, and the matter was referred to arbitration.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 21, Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 24.02.2026
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under two invoices dated 05.10.2023 and 01.01.2024. 2. The arbitration clause is Clause 33 which is part of the work order, which reads as under:
“33. Arbitration Any disputes arising out of this Contract shall be referred to the mutually agreed sole arbitrator as per Arbitration & Reconciliation Act 1996 and his award shall be final and binding on both parties.”
It is not in dispute that the work order was executed in Delhi, therefore, the cause of action has arisen within the territorial juri iction of this Court.
The disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by notice dated 22.04.2025 in terms of Section 21 of the Act, which was responded to by the respondent. The respondent also This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 17:00:18
admitted to the Arbitration Clause but there was no consensus arrived at on the name of the Arbitrator, which led to the filing of the present petition under Section 11 of the Act.
Notice was issued in the present petition on 14.11.2025. 6. Mr. Rudraksh Gupta, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. Reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondent. Mr. Gupta points out that the name in the tax invoices has been incorrectly mentioned.
Elaborating further, he submits that the tax invoices mentions the name of the respondent as “Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd” whereas the respondent in the present matter is “Parnika Commercial and Estates Pvt. Ltd”.
Mr. Nitin Kumar Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that in the invoices, the incorrect name is on account of a typographical error, however, the correct GST number of the respondent has been mentioned therein and the input credit has also been taken by the respondent, which position is not disputed by Mr. Gupta.
Mr. Gupta submits that he would not have any objection in case “Parnika Real Estate Pvt. Ltd” is also impleaded as party and the matter is referred to the arbitration. Ordered accordingly.
In view of the above, Mr. Goyal submits that he will file amended memo of parties within one week. Let needful be done as undertaken.
Since there is no dispute as to the existence of arbitration clause, therefore, the present petition is allowed.
Accordingly, the dispute between the parties is referred to the arbitration of Ms. Shreya Mathur, Advocate (D/6388/2017); [Mob. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 17:00:18
8527080105].
The arbitration will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi – 110003 [“DIAC”] and shall be governed by the Rules of DIAC including as to the remuneration of the learned Arbitrator.
The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration under Section 12 of the Act prior to entering upon the reference.
Further, since respondent no.2 is not represented before this Court, it is made clear that respondent no.2 be also served in accordance with the rules of DIAC in the arbitration proceedings.
It is made clear that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.
Petition stands disposed of. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026/dss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/03/2026 at 17:00:18
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.