Disposed¶25

Shatayu Hospital v. Anh Technologies Private Limited

Delhi HC14 Feb 2025ARB.P./1861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ARB.P. 1861/2024 High Court of Delhi arbitration appointment Section 11(5) (6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 Section 12(2) disclosure Shatayu Hospital petitioner ANH Technologies Private Limited respondent Clause 16 MOU arbitration clause sole arbitrator seat Delhi jurisdiction Kushagra Bansal DIAC rules fees medical service provider claim desk management outstanding Rs.1,73,668 claim Rs.3,97,660 legal notice 15.04.2024 unanswered rights contentions kept open disposed 14.02.2025 Subramonium Prasad.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties, with the arbitration to take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) per its rules and fee schedule. ¶25

Shatayu Hospital Vs Anh Technologies Private Limited — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether an Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since the seat of arbitration is in Delhi, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties.

¶18

Key takeaways

The arbitration is to take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), abiding by its rules and regulations, with the Arbitrator entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by DIAC.ratio¶21
The learned Arbitrator is requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act within a week of entering on reference.ratio¶22
All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits in accordance with law; nothing in this order is to be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the parties' contentions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad, J., sole author), ARB.P. 1861/2024, order dated 14.02.2025: Shatayu Hospital filed a Section 11(5) & (6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes with ANH Technologies Private Limited arising from a Memorandum of Understanding under which the Respondent acted as medical service provider facilitating claim desk management. The Petitioner asserted Rs.3,97,660/- due and payable, of which Rs.1,73,668/- remained outstanding, and had invoked arbitration by legal notice dated 15.04.2024 that went unanswered. Clause 16 of the MOU prescribes arbitration by a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and conciliation Act of 1996, laws of India, exclusive jurisdiction of courts of Delhi, English language, seat and place Delhi. Holding the seat to lie in Delhi, the Court found it possessed jurisdiction; the Respondent voiced no objection; Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate, was appointed Sole Arbitrator; arbitration to run under DIAC aegis and fee schedule, with disclosure under Section 12(2) within a week of entering reference; claims/counter-claim rights and contentions kept open, merits expressly left to the Arbitrator; petition disposed of.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 1861/2024

¶4

SHATAYU HOSPITAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jacob Benny, Advocate versus ANH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr Naman Joshi, Ms Amber Tickoo, Advocates Mr. Aditya Chaturvedi, Advocate

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 14.02.2025

¶9

This is a petition under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶10

Material on record indicates that the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent with the Respondent being the medical service provider for facilitating the claim desk management.

¶11

The case of the Petitioner is that a sum of Rs.3,97,660/- was due and payable. It is stated that part amount of Rs.1,73,668/- is still due and payable by the Respondent. It is stated that since there was a dispute regarding payment of outstanding claim amount, the Petitioner issued legal notice dated 15.04.2024 to the Respondent invoking arbitration. It is stated that the Respondent has not replied to the said notice therefore the Petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶12

It is stated that Clause 16 of the Memorandum of Understanding

¶13

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 19/02/2025 at 12:03:32

¶14

contains an arbitration clause, which reads as under:-

¶15

“GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION:

¶16

This Agreement shall be governed and constructed in accordance with the laws of India, and any disputes therein shall fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Delhi, India.

¶17

In the event of any dispute arising between the parties with respect to this Agreement, the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator and the Arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and conciliation Act of 1996, the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English. The Seat and place of arbitration shall be Delhi and the decision of the Arbitrators shall be final and binding on both parties herein.”

¶18

The seat of arbitration is in Delhi, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the Respondent has no objection to the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶20

Accordingly, Mr. Kushagra Bansal, Advocate, (Mob: 9999448797) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶21

The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.

¶22

The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act within a week of entering on reference.

¶23

¶24

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶25

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 12. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.

¶26

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 14, 2025 hsk

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 19/02/2025 at 12:03:32

Shatayu Hospital v. Anh Technologies Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatayu Hospital v. Anh Technologies Private Limited

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

Servesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Department

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shree Ram Polymer

Prateek Walia Vs Nipun Bhatia

Tejas Network Ltd. Vs Bharat Broadband Network Ltd.

M/S City Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vinod Kumar Talwar & Anr.

Uem India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pall India Pvt. Ltd.