Disposed¶26

M/S Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Sparsh Hospital and Critical Care & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026ARB.P./313/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC Section 11 A&C Act 1996 petition disposed; appointment of Sole Arbitrator Mr. Yatharth Chugh; Pathology Services Agreement dated 28.01.2020; arbitration clause Clause 11.2; seat/venue Delhi; unpaid services claim Rs. 3,06,025/-; Section 21 notice dated 07.04.2025; arbitration under DIAC aegis with DIAC fee schedule; Section 12(2) disclosure within two weeks; Section 16 arbitrability objections kept open; decision dated 09.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Yatharth Chugh, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator; arbitration to proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) with disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering reference and Section 16 arbitrability objections kept open before the Arbitrator. ¶26

M/S Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sparsh Hospital and… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between the parties arising under the Pathology Services Agreement dated 28.01.2020.

¶10

Court's answer

Since disputes had arisen between the parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, the Court was inclined to appoint an arbitrator and accordingly appointed Mr. Yatharth Chugh, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Clause 11.2 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause indicating the venue of arbitration shall be at Delhi, and there is no communication showing the parties decided the seat of arbitration would be anywhere other than Delhi.

¶12

Key takeaways

The arbitration shall 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 the DIAC.ratio¶19
Objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding arbitrability of issue(s) were expressly left open, to be raised before the Arbitrator.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad, J.) disposed of ARB.P. 313/2026, a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by M/s Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt Ltd seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes under a Pathology Services Agreement dated 28.01.2020 containing an arbitration clause (Clause 11.2) placing the venue of arbitration at Delhi, with no communication suggesting any other seat. Following the Petitioner's Section 21 notice dated 07.04.2025 claiming Rs.3,06,025/- for services rendered but unpaid, the Court held that since disputes had arisen and the Agreement contained an arbitration clause, Mr. Yatharth Chugh, Advocate, was appointed Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration is to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) per its rules, with fees as per the DIAC Schedule of Fees; the arbitrator to file disclosure under Section 12(2) within two weeks of entering reference; Section 16 arbitrability objections and all rights and contentions kept open to be decided by the Arbitrator on merits; nothing in the Order to be construed as an expression on the merits.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 313/2026

¶4

M/S PATHKIND DIAGNOSTICS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Singh and Ms. Shreya Mansi James, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S SPARSH HOSPITAL AND CRITICAL CARE & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Pratik Dash and Mr. Abhijit Pattanaik, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R % 09.04.2026

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties under a Pathology Services Agreement dated 28.01.2020 ( hereinafter referred to as “ Agreement ” ).

¶11

It is the case of the Petitioner that under the Agreement, the Respondents have availed the services of the Petitioner and have not made payments for the services rendered by the Petitioner to the Respondents.

¶12

Clause 11.2 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause. The said clause indicates that the venue of arbitration shall be at Delhi. There is no other communication which shows that the parties have decided that the seat of the arbitration would be at any place other than Delhi.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

ARB.P. 313/2026

¶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 16/04/2026 at 12:14:27

¶16

A notice dated 07.04.2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondents invoking Arbitration and claiming a sum of Rs.3,06,025/- which according to the Petitioner is due and payable by the Respondents.

¶17

Notice was issued in the Petition on 17.02.2026. 6. Mr. Pratik Dash, learned Counsel, enters appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

¶18

In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the Parties and the Agreement contains an arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Yatharth Chugh, Advocate, (Mob. No.8700395430) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶19

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.

¶20

The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, within two weeks from the date of entering into reference.

¶21

The objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding arbitrability of issue(s) are kept open to be raised before the Arbitrator.

¶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.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

ARB.P. 313/2026

¶25

¶26

Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 14. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending Application(s), if any.

¶27

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶28

APRIL 09, 2026 S. Zakir

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

ARB.P. 313/2026

¶31

M/S Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Sparsh Hospital and Critical Care & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Sparsh Hospital and Critical Care & 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

Pidge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sliksync Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Tommorrowland Limited Vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Developement Corporation Ltd. (Hsiidc)

Marriott Worldwide Corporation Vs Creekinn Holidays World Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Courtyard Holidays World Pvt. Ltd.)

Rakhi Jain Vs Imperia Structures Limited

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs Universal Computers Ltd. & Ors.

Valplast Technologies Limited Vs Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd.