Facts & Background:

• Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the sale, distribution, and marketing of products in India, registered as Amway Business Owners (ABO)/Amway Direct Sellers (ADS) under 'Sindhia Enterprises' with ABO No. 141935 was Appellant.
• Ravindranath Rao Sindhia and his wife were respondents. They appointed the Appellants as distributors for selling, distributing, and marketing their products in India.
• The Appellant established a significant Line of Sponsorship, supporting approximately 1500 ADSs who progressed to higher categories, executed requisite agreements, and received income for sales recorded in their ABO account, with periodic contract renewals and automatic ADS renewal from 2015.
• In April 2019, the Appellants’ ABO account was reclassified as a "PC" account for alleged non-compliance with unpublished criteria from December 2016, notwithstanding multiple requests for restoration and the absence of any formal termination notice.
• In January 2020, the Appellants escalated the issue to Amway Global, but their request for account restoration was denied in June 2020. In July 2020, the Respondent introduced a revised Code of Ethics, permitting two years for sales compliance and account restoration.
• On July 28, 2020, the Appellants invoked the arbitration clause by notice to the Respondent, who rejected the proposed arbitrator and failed to respond upon expiration of the requested time, prompting the Appellants to file a petition before the Delhi High Court.
• The present appeal challenges the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction, asserting that the arbitration constitutes international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f)(i) of the Arbitration Act, as the Appellants were habitually resident in the United States.
  
  

Main Issue:

• Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996?