Allowed

M/S. Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Vision Ray Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC20 Aug 2025ARB.P./901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Padav Pushpam KMV held that the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot extend to adjudication of merits.

What did the court decide?

Appoints Mr. Arnav Mehta, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to take over the proceedings.

M/S. Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Vision Ray Health… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$ - 6
* IN THEGCOURFDLAW
+ ARB.P 901/25
snatfc ieoD : 20.8 .205
IN THEMAROF:
M/S. INDRAYECLPVT
CA: F D O I S T G RE -
P C ARE SL 1NIT O 06. , U
, O R I K U L E ANDH RI (AST), E DH
, ND AI UB M - 493. 0
I: ATE FCOR P -
CY NG9 ID FLOR,B U16H T
PHASE - HY. NRA OU I, G
. ONR ETI P
roug: h T mn,vocte dA hi a Ms . N
Ver s
M/S. VIONRAYHELTCPD
ICAT F GD. OR E :
B - DG RI T)H ASEMN (B1/ 3,
M VR,DEL HI SCP A - 1 063.
. DT N SPOR E
roug: h T n G,Advocte au M r. T
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICPADKV
JUDGEMNT
PURSHAIND KMV , J.(ORAL)
1. he p T snti oabflr d u nertio1 ScfhAba

¶2

¶3

and Concilat Act, 196 (the 196 Act) by the petionr seking
apointmefArbdjuchs
betwn the parties under	Exclusive Distrbuon and		Suply Agremnt
da ted01.2
2. Heard lncouspigbhft
3. On notice being isued, Mr.Taun Gaur, learnd counselapers on
behalf otrspnd.	He submitharpond bject
the apoinmfrbdc		ide thspunrca.
4. The facts of the caseindcatetha dispute have arisen betwn the
partiescongthe unsaifcorypem andservic ndby
therspondicaydistrbuonehExclvD			ion
and Suply Agremntdate01.23 It is furthe notedtha the
petionrsudan rbitonce dat25		.0325 underSctio 21of
the 196 Act ,invokg thearbiton clause (Clause 6) and seking
recovy of Rs. 47,80	- along wi	th inters at the rate of 18% per
anum. Theptiorls caeduonthrespipaythe sd
amountrcsehnomiatfprsedcla obi
toadjuicehspbwnr15y.
5. It is submited on behalf of the petionrtha, in its replydate
07.425, the respondt acknowledg theexistnc of anarbitl
disputebxrvaonghmlytef
theprosed ofical, who holds the posit		io n of Manger	œLegal and
Compliance. Consequtly, the respondtdeclin to conset to the

¶4

¶5

me of the nt oia p sed r op o. H t bi ar e nc, the ponr has filed the eti
6A. 9 (5)fh c1 udS nt io s pre
6. The Court takes note of the Cla use 6 of Exclusive Drbuon & s ti
-
s ic h 3,w ntda01.2 ly Ag re mS up
—''6. Article 15 of the Agreement
acd w is: t h,fp lo r e
"15 . D is p uteo lnThPR ar g et ou s hi r bta e
efo r ts el va r dis pu t , econr va drsw ifeh cmay
arise out of or in eti with this Agr con mnt in an e micble a
er. Ifma n t h e sl mnfai tob e d, h rac te d is pua r ng fom
or in eti with this con ra shon tc a l be fd to A re r b it aon in
ordne with the s ac t auory pr o v is n of the A r b it aon and
i lat Act, 1C on c 9 6. The A r b it aon sha l be fd to the Sole re
A rb i t ao y muta l gn reo set of n c t h e Paris.The ar bitl
a wrd i sf na d gupb ino b t hparies. ar Theb it onsh l
ute i o ndc Egls h , a nd t e plc o f ar b it nsh l b e NwDlhi,
India."“
7. The law with rspct to the scope and st e r of jud da n cal scrutiny i
du e r Scti no1 (6)f he1 t 6Ac h 9a sbnfirly e el st wd.ThiCour
as w el inh o trde a5 in 24.0 the case ofARBP 14 . 0 25 /iled t
as Pradhn AiExpesPvt Ldv. AirWoksInda EgierPvtLd
ha s el nivyda wit t x h e tp fisc o fc a nter h et sag o f Sectin
. The 1 Coasn: d lt h eur -
—9. The law with respect to the sc
under Section (6) of the 1 1 9 6 Act has bn fairly we e l s et ld. The
m Cotin thS u p re e cas of SBI GenralIsuc Co.Ltd v.Krish
Sping 1 , while co n s i derg a l a r li pr e mts on uc e in cludg the
Cual Bench dec on s ti i son of svn judges in the case of e Interplay
betwn Ariaton Agremtsunde the Arbitaon &Concilat
1 Lie175 n O 2 0 4 SC

¶6

¶7

Act, 196& theIndia StmpAc, 189 , In re² h as eld t ha scop e of i nqury at the stage of ame of an A p oi nt r bi t ao is l i mted to the t n ofprx e i m a f ce xistn of t he ar b i o n mt ag en dothig e 10. It has eqivocay b lun held in e par gh no. 1 4 in the case of SBI GenralsucCo. Ltd t h a oin b se rv Vidya Drol v. Durga Trading Corpn. 3 , and a d opte in NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra ,⁴ t ha the jursdcton of the i fal court when dealing with the re issue of —accord and satisfaction“ out ex - facie n - arb itle ndfr io l us d vptew o ul nt ap ly fter the dec i son of Re: Interplay . Th ab e ventd opar gh no. 1 4 in the case of SBI GenralsucCo.Ltd reads - —114. In view of the observations Re: I nte rp l a y (su), i t scle a r the o pf enquiryat sc the stage of ame of p oi nt o is l ar bi t mted to the i scrutiny of prima facie xistnc of the e on ar b it mnt, and agr e n othig ls. For this reason, we find it e d if cult to hold ha the obs t ervations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and a d opte in NTPC v. SPML (supra) t ha the jur i sdct o n fth e r falcout wh en dal i g w the i s of —accord and satisfaction“ unde ding out exw e - facie n - arb itle and frivlus di o pute s w ould ntie ca p y s h un tdcb e q i oI Re: Interplay (supra).“ 1 . Ex - facie fr i volty and dihonety are the i s s ue, w h ic have b e held to be wthn the scope of the A i bital Tribunal w r h ic is equay l a pble of c i ec d upon the i ton of rec ap vidnc a e d uce by the pa r t ies . W h lc ond g te afrs ip on ucm th e Suprm Cour t , h e m Cotin thS u p r e cas of Goqi Technlgs(P) Ltd.v Sokrati Technolgis (P) Ltd. 5 , vr, has held how e t ha the re al Courts under Section 1 must not be mi s ued by one party in o r de to e t f or chparies t ohe ar b it o n m g et o pa r i ce na time co n sumig and costly ar b it on proce s . Few itace have b ns n e inat such l de ,j o f an n - i sx etn adml fc thro ug a n.Tb i C heo u r t , wv inde tb or e ta lnchlmed i e fco ps ialntrh j u dC o w e rsfhin t parties who might be co n straied to pa r ti ce in the on ar b it

¶8

2 OnL 2 03 S C ine SC1 6
3 () S C2 0 1
4 () 9S C2 0 3
5 (05) S C2

¶9

¶10

proc e ngs, has held t ha the A r bital Tribunal vntua l y may direct e
t ha the co s t of the ar b it on sha l be borne by the party w h ic the
A r bital Tribunal finds to have abused the proce s of law and caused
sar y h mpi to cu ne r b it aon.
12. I t i s h usn et a hSmCot u p reh asf rt ade ju i con
of apect relating to friv s o lus, n - xis t n and m e lfide claims from a
th e r fals t age i l t he ar b i o n dgsvntuaproc el y cometo an
end. The rlvant extra e cts of Goqi Technolgis (P) Ltd. reads as
under: -
—20. As obsrvd in e Krish Spg. [ SBI Gnral I e n surace Co.
Ltd. v. Krish Spg. , ( 2 04)1 S C 1: 2 04S C O n LieSC
0INSC3],fr 2 17 54 : iolt y n vg as pec
w h ic the fal cour re t should not ci at the stage of de
tion 1as cS e h r bqu ,l yf moe t cp
hsm. t o ad juic e
Bfor we e onlude, we must clarify c t ha the l i
jur i sdct o n fth e r falcouts urSctio n d e 1 mus t
be mi s ued b y parties in o r de to force other parties to the
ar b iton mg epca t im e o n sugd
costly ar b it on proce s . This is po s ible in itace, ns
includ g b tome ,wr ah v
cton of ad ju i n - exis t en and m a l fide claims troug h
ar b it
With a view to blnce the l a i mted scope of judcal i
fc of the er i n t fal courts with the in re s r of the te
parties who might be co n straied to ti ce in the pa r
dgs,hA arbiton e pc tral Tbunmydec i
t he c os f th e ar onsb ilbe orny t he paryw h
the Tribunal uimaey finds to have abused the proce lt s of
l a w ndcuser y t oerha m y opa t
the ar b it on. Having said t ha, it is cla fed r i t ha the
a foresid is not to be construed as a d inet rmao of the
merits of the ma t er bfor us, w e h ic the Abital Tribunal r
will rightfully be equipp ed to de

¶11

13. In view of the a foresid, the scope at the stage of Section 1 proc e ngs is akin to the y of the n e dl e t es and is l i mted to the extn ofi dg a p rmc s t h e bio na gd n othig beyond it. The jur i sdctonal c o nturs of the fal Court, as re ul osy metic linat under the 1 de 9 6 Act a

¶12

nd fu r the cryied s ta l

¶13

¶14

t h roug a coe line of ns i t ve pr a u t hor i mts by the eon uc
m CS u p reo t, an q cl yfed to i v a pr ime fc n tox
of the xistnc of an e ar b it on agrmnt. Th e s boundaries are not e
rly pm e ocedual s r a rds but fumetl to upholding the n d a
nmy faut o t he ar bilpoce s . A n yt r a s g e i o bynd t h i s lmed
cal tjud i h resold would not only co e the n trav satv i le g i e nt
shrid in Section 8 and Section en 1 of the 1 9 6 Act but also risk
derm i u n the sanciy and t ny of efic ar b it on as a pfd re
de fdim o s p ute lin.Th o r e r falCo t u rms , fo xcisth er
es tr ain and efain from ve r n turig into the merits of the dispute or
ctng ad j ui s e t h a l fsquarey w ith ne jur i s d ct ona l mof
the ar bitl tribunal. It is thus sn e t ha the scope of enquiry at the
fal stage is cons re ati in nature. A s e r v i mlar view has also b e
d bythxpr se e S u p r mCot inth e casof Ajay MdhusnPatel
v. JyotrindaSPel “ 6 .
9. In viewof hef t ta chdi e pu s vrish aen t whb e rtisnd p a
r is an th e on clause in the it b ar mntagr e , this Court is cled to in
ehs c urbd jA apoint same .
10. ordingly, c A Mr. Arnav Mial t , Ad vocate (Mobile No . +91
16 59 8 , e - mail id : - @g.co mitl rnd va ) is aointed as the p
t a.bi r le As o
1 The Sole Aao may proc t bi r d with the e on proc it b ar dings, e
t o gpa nihe cbj su fr cloan rties h qud
dCl. aAr b12fh ection S
th
12. he T olrbita SsA nd f h c wteIV

¶15

M/S. Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Vision Ray Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S. Vision Ray Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Bajaj Vs Dinesh Chand Gupta & Ors.

M/S Ravi and Sigh Communication through Its Partner Vs M/S Super Disco Ispat Pvt. Limited through Its Director

91 Springboard Business Hub Private Limited Vs M/S Ant Creatives Opc Private Limited

Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. Vs Xpert Solutions

Ms. Madhavi Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs State

Shanaya Abbot ( Minor) Vs Dr Vijay Abbot & Ors.