The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Surender Bajaj, who sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator in connection with a property dispute arising out of a collaboration agreement. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while delivering the order on August 19, 2025, observed that the plea could not be entertained in light of earlier judicial findings.
Background of the Dispute
The matter traces back to a collaboration agreement signed in December 2018 between Bajaj and Dinesh Chand Gupta, a resident of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Under the agreement, Bajaj was to undertake construction work, in exchange for which he was entitled to ownership of the second floor of the redeveloped property. However, even after the completion of construction, Bajaj alleged that the Guptas and other respondents refused to hand over possession, forcing him to invoke the arbitration clause.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry Under Section 340 CrPC Into Alleged Forgery in Anticipatory Bail Case
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the matter was already pending before the Civil Judge at Tis Hazari Courts. They highlighted that a civil suit for permanent injunction had been instituted earlier and that Bajaj’s attempt to shift the dispute to arbitration had already been rejected by both the trial court and the appellate court. The rejection was based on technical lapses, such as failure to produce the original collaboration agreement and the presence of non-signatory parties who were not bound by the arbitration clause.
Read also:- Kerala High Court: Trial Judges Must Personally View Obscene Videos Before Conviction
The High Court examined the history of proceedings and took note of the fact that Bajaj's earlier application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been dismissed in May 2023, with the dismissal later upheld on appeal in April 2024. Referring to those findings,
the Court said:
"Sending the parties to an Arbitrator would lead to splitting of the subject matter, which is not permissible under the scheme of the Act."
Read also:- P&H High Court Orders Counselling of Minor Girl Allegedly in Mother's Custody at Dera Sacha Sauda
Justice Kaurav further ruled that the present plea could not bypass or override those binding judicial orders.
"So long as the appellate order remains intact, the same prayer cannot be repeated under Section 11. Entertaining it again would amount to res judicata," the Court stated.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that the petitioner was free to seek remedies available under law in appropriate forums.
Case Title: Surender Bajaj vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1076/2025
