M/S Express Food Services vs. Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Shiv and Sons and M/s Express Food Services, filed petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The disputes arose from license agreements with the respondent, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC), for operating catering services at various railway stations. The petitioners encountered operational difficulties and sought to exit the contracts after the lock-in period, as per Clause 3.4 of the Tender Documents. Disputes concerned the terms of exit and forfeiture of security deposits. The petitioners invoked arbitration, and upon IRCTC's failure to appoint an arbitrator, these petitions were filed. The tax period is not specified. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated, except for a license fee of Rs. 85,28,908/- including GST for one petitioner.
Held
The Court held that once the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed, there is no impediment to appointing an arbitrator. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, which supports the appointment of an arbitrator when the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. The Court found no reason to refuse the appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate, was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in both petitions, with each petition to be treated as a separate reference. The arbitrator's fee is to be fixed as per the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act. The arbitrator is required to provide disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court has the power to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that since the existence of an arbitration agreement was not disputed by the respondent, the Court should proceed to appoint an arbitrator as per the statutory mandate. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement in the form of Clause 5 in the General Conditions of License in the Tender Document. No further arguments were recorded for the respondent.
Sections Cited
Section 11(6), Section 12
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
These petitions are filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ARB.P. 1180/2025
To the extent necessary the facts are that Respondent awarded licenses for operation, maintenance and provision of catering services 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 21/08/2025 at 12:16:21 in/through refreshment rooms at four Railway Stations i.e. Palanpur, Bharatpur, Bhusawal and Trivandrum Central for a period of five years and Petitioner deposited the requisite security deposit. Petitioner avers that it encountered significant operational difficulties in operating the catering stalls and thus after the lock in period for each of these contracts expired, Petitioner wrote to the Respondent seeking exit from the contracts under Clause 3.4 of the Tender Documents. Disputes arose between the parties concerning the terms and procedure of exiting from the contract as also forfeiture of security deposits and Petitioner issued notice invoking arbitration on 13.05.2025 and on failure of the Respondent to appoint an Arbitrator by mutual consent, filed this petition. ARB.P. 1183/2025
To the extent necessary the facts are that Respondent awarded a license to the Petitioner on 17.05.2023 for operating, maintaining and providing catering services through a refreshment room at Jhansi Railway Station for a period of five years at a license fee of Rs.85,28,908/-, including GST. Petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the license on 30.05.2023. However, on encountering significant operational difficulties in operating the catering stall, after the lock in period expired, Petitioner wrote to the Respondent seeking exit from the contract under Clause 3.4 of the Tender Document. Disputes arose between the parties concerning the terms and procedure of exiting from the contract as also forfeiture of security deposit and Petitioner issued notice invoking arbitration on 13.05.2025 and on failure of the Respondent to appoint an Arbitrator by mutual consent, filed this petition.
Issue notice. 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 21/08/2025 at 12:16:21 5. Dr. M.K. Panday, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent in both the petitions and does not dispute the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties in the form of Clause 5 in the General Conditions of License in the Tender Document.
Once the existence of the arbitration agreement is undisputed, this Court finds no impediment in appointing the Arbitrator in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754. 7. Accordingly, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Advocate (Mobile No. 9818131566), is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in both these petitions, however, these will be treated as two separate references. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act.
Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.
Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J AUGUST 8, 2025 S.Sharma/Shivam 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 21/08/2025 at 12:16:21
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.