Disposed

Mr. Neeraj Gupta v. Mr. Harish Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC10 Oct 2025ARB.P./115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a Memorandum of Understanding involving financial assistance and non-payment of dues. Mediation failed. With both parties consenting, the court referred disputes to a named sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Ritika Trivedi, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; parties to approach within two weeks.

Mr. Neeraj Gupta Vs Mr. Harish Kumar & Anr. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 115/2025

¶4

MR. NEERAJ GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Bipin Kr. Prabhat and Mr. Bhola Dayal, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MR. HARISH KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate for R-1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.10.2025

¶11

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Act’) to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 6^th July, 2021 (hereinafter ‘MoU’), executed between the parties. The MoU in question was executed at New Delhi.

¶12

In terms of the aforesaid MoU, the petitioner has agreed to provide financial assistance of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the respondent no.2.

¶13

The aforesaid MoU contains an arbitration clause, i.e. Clause J. The said Clause is set out below:-

¶14

“J. This Agreement will be governed by laws of India and for any disputes arises between the Parties shall be settled by the Arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties to this agreement.”

¶15

Since there were disputes between the parties on account of nonpayment of outstanding dues, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 2^nd

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

ARB.P. 115/2025

¶18

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 14/10/2025 at 12:48:10

¶19

November, 2023 to the respondent, which was duly replied to by the respondent on 14^th November, 2023.

¶20

Thereafter, since the issues could not be resolved, the petitioner sent a notice dated 7^th December, 2023 to the respondent, invoking the aforesaid arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Act. However, no reply to the said notice has been received by the petitioner.

¶21

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition.

¶22

Notice in the present petition was issued by order dated 17^th January 2025.

¶23

Parties were referred for mediation vide order dated 26^th May, 2025. However, as per the report received from the Mediation Centre, the parties could not settle their disputes in mediation.

¶24

In view thereof, in terms of Clause J of the MoU executed between the parties, counsel for the petitioner seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by this Court.

¶25

The respondent no.1, who is also the proprietor of the respondent no.2 M/s Stalin Engineering, is present in Court and submits that he has no objection to the appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶26

Accordingly, the dispute between the parties under the MoU is referred to the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator. The following directions are issued in this regard:

¶27

a. Ms. Ritika Trivedi, Advocate (Mobile No.+91-9891040207) is

¶28

appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶29

b. The Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of

Page 2 of 3

ARB.P. 115/2025

Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event there is any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

¶34

c. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the Act.

¶35

d. The parties shall approach the Arbitrator within two (2) weeks from today.

¶36

It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including the arbitrability of any of the claims, and/or counter claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator.

¶37

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

Needless to state, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

AMIT BANSAL, J

OCTOBER 10, 2025

Vivek/-

Page 3 of 3

ARB.P. 115/2025

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 14/10/2025 at 12:48:10

Mr. Neeraj Gupta v. Mr. Harish Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Neeraj Gupta v. Mr. Harish Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Nirman Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Shri Ram Singh Hospital and Heart Institute Vs the Medical Superintendent Ig Esi, Hospital & Ors.

Abhiyan Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hemlata and Anr.

Dev Narain Paswan Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S. M2K Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative and Anr. Vs North Delhi Metro Mall Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known as Mgf Metro Mall Pvt. Ltd.) and Anr.

Santosh Rani (through Gpa Holder) Rajeev Sethi Vs Chand Bibi Aggarwal Dharmarth Trust