Disposed¶24

Ravinder Kumar v. Vandana Pathak

Delhi HC8 May 2025ARB.P./154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, ARB.P. 154/2025, Jyoti Singh, J., order dated 08.05.2025 — Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; consensual appointment of Shri Gajendra Giri, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; partnership dispute under Tripartite MoU dated 21.12.2021 and Partnership Deed dated 24.11.2022 (M/s Ganga Patro Mart); Arbitration Clause 21 invoked by notice dated 13.12.2024; DIAC proceedings and DIAC Rules 2018 fee schedule; Section 12 disclosure; no opinion on merits; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri Gajendra Giri, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, with proceedings under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and its Rules, and the Arbitrator's fee as per the DIAC Rules 2018 fee schedule. ¶24

Ravinder Kumar Vs Vandana Pathak — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent arising from the Tripartite MoU dated 21.12.2021 and the Partnership Deed dated 24.11.2022 containing Arbitration Clause 21.

¶12

Court's answer

With the consent of the parties, Shri Gajendra Giri, Advocate is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and as per its Rules, with the Arbitrator's fee fixed as per the fee schedule of DIAC Rules 2018.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon the reference.

¶22

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Disputes arose from a Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2021 between the Petitioner, the Respondent and Shri Mohinder Kumar (partnership for a retail outlet, profits/losses shared one-third each) and a Partnership Deed dated 24.11.2022 establishing M/s Ganga Patro Mart, incorporating Arbitration Clause 21 referring disputes to a sole arbitrator. The Petitioner invoked the clause by notice dated 13.12.2024 (received 16.12.2024); the Respondent failed to agree to the appointment but, before the Court, raised no objection while refuting the allegations. With the consent of the parties, the Court appointed Shri Gajendra Giri, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator; proceedings to be held under the aegis of DIAC and its Rules, with fees per the DIAC Rules 2018 fee schedule; disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act required before entering upon the reference. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and left all rights and contentions open. Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 154/2025

¶4

RAVINDER KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Vivek Luthra, Ms. Arsheiya Munjal and Ms. Aakarshika Chawla, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

VANDANA PATHAK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kartik Burman, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 08.05.2025

¶12

This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶13

Disputes between the parties emanate from a Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2021 entered into between Petitioner, Respondent and Shri Mohinder Kumar, whereby parties agreed to enter into partnership for running a retail outlet and also agreed that profit and loss would be shared in the ratio of 1/3^rd each. Partnership Deed was executed on 24.11.2022, whereby partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Ganga Patro Mart was established. Partnership Deed incorporated Arbitration Clause 21, which is as follows: -

¶14

“21. Parties shall endeavour to amicably settle any disputes or differences, arising in connection with this deed. However, any dispute or difference arising under or in connection with this partnership deed shall

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

ARB.P. 154/2025

¶17

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 30/06/2025 at 23:35:51

¶18

be referred to the sole arbitrator as per the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and amendments made there to from time to time. Further the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding on the parties.”

¶19

Petitioner asserts that Respondent did not fulfil its obligations under the MoU, compelling the Petitioner to invoke the Arbitration Clause vide notice dated 13.12.2024, which was duly received by the Respondent on 16.12.2024, but Respondent failed to agree to appointment of the Arbitrator and hence, this petition was filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Respondent, on instructions, submits that Respondent has no objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator, but the averments and the allegations in the petition are refuted.

¶21

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Shri Gajendra Giri, Advocate (Mobile No. 9213934696) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and as per its Rules. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule of DIAC Rules 2018.

¶22

Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference.

¶23

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open.

¶24