Allowed¶24

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Palika Maternity Hospital and Anr.

Delhi HC15 Dec 2025ARB.P./1493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; appointment of Sole Arbitrator; existence of valid arbitration agreement; GeM Contract (Government e-Marketplace) dated 22.05.2021; Clause 1.8 read with Clause 16 General Conditions of Contract; Section 21 notice dated 03.12.2024; objection that all dues paid is matter for arbitrator; Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Palika Maternity Hospital; NDMC; DIAC proceedings; Ruchi Gour Narula; ARB.P. 1493/2025; Delhi High Court; Amit Bansal, J.; order dated 15.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 11(6) allowed: disputes referred to Arbitral Tribunal comprising Sole Arbitrator (Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula); proceedings under the aegis of DIAC; petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ¶24

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Palika Maternity Hospital… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and whether a Sole Arbitrator ought to be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes arising out of the GeM Contract dated 22nd May, 2021. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

There exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Whether any dues of the petitioner are outstanding or not is a matter for the arbitral tribunal, and does not bar reference under Section 11.

¶22

Key takeaways

The dispute between the parties under the Agreement is referred to a Sole Arbitrator; Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula is appointed as Sole Arbitrator, with proceedings under the aegis of DIAC, remuneration per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018, a declaration under Section 12 of the Act before entering reference, and the parties to approach the Arbitrator within two weeks.ratio¶25
All rights and contentions of the parties, including arbitrability of claims/counterclaims and preliminary objections, are left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator.obiter¶35
Nothing in the order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.), by order dated 15.12.2025 in ARB.P. 1493/2025, allowed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. against Palika Maternity Hospital and Anr. (represented by NDMC counsel), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for disputes under a GeM Contract dated 22nd May, 2021. The respondents did not dispute the arbitration clause (Clause 1.8 read with Clause 16 of the GeM General Conditions of Contract) but contended that all dues had been paid and no dispute survived. The Court held that whether any dues are outstanding is itself subject matter of the arbitration, found a valid arbitration agreement, and appointed Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula as Sole Arbitrator, with proceedings under the aegis of DIAC and remuneration per the DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018. Declaration under Section 12 of the Act required before entering reference; parties to approach the Arbitrator within two weeks. All rights, contentions and preliminary objections, including arbitrability, left open; no expression on merits.

¶1

$~7

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1493/2025

¶4

SARVESH SECURITY SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sneha Singh and Mr. Uday Malhotra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

PALIKA MATERNITY HOSPITAL AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Addl. S.C. with Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocate for NDMC.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 15.12.2025

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties arising out of a GeM Contract dated 22^nd May, 2021 (hereinafter ‘Contract’).

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Contract contains an arbitration clause, i.e. Clause 1.8 read with Clause 16 of the terms and conditions of the GeM contained in the General Conditions of Contract provides for adjudication of any dispute arising between the parties by way of arbitration.

¶12

He further submits that since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner sent a notice dated 3^rd December, 2024 to the respondents

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

ARB.P. 1493/2025

¶15

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 18/12/2025 at 11:55:10

¶16

invoking the aforesaid arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Act. However, the respondents have failed to agree for appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶17

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

¶18

Notice in the present petition was issued on 16^th September, 2025.

¶19

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

6.1. However, the same has been returned under objections.

¶21

Counsel for the respondents submits that even though the respondents do not dispute the existence of the arbitration clause, all due payments of the petitioner have been made. Therefore, there is no dispute required to be referred for arbitration.

¶22

7.1. In my considered view, whether any dues of the petitioner are outstanding or not would be subject matter of the arbitration.

¶23

I am satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration agreement.

¶24

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

¶25

a. Ms. Ruchi Gour Narula (Mobile No.: +91-9810084123) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶26

b. The arbitral proceedings shall be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘ DIAC ’).

¶27

c. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶28

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

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

ARB.P. 1493/2025

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 18/12/2025 at 11:55:10

¶33

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

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

¶35

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 objections as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the Arbitrator.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶37

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

¶38

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶39

DECEMBER 15, 2025

Rzu

Page 3 of 3

ARB.P. 1493/2025

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 18/12/2025 at 11:55:10

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Palika Maternity Hospital and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Palika Maternity Hospital and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Praveen Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs Sh Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors.

Paramount Wires and Cables Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Pioneer Power Ltd.

Kiran Mehra & Anr. Vs Arun Mehra & Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs Devender Singh & Ors.

M/S. Aims Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ritu Jain