Goldy Nagdev Vs Mr Pankaj Nagdev and Ors.

¶1

$~30

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

ARB.P. 415/2026 GOLDY NAGDEV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Ms. Padamja Sharma, Ms. Tuhina Kakkar and Mr. Aryan Jha, Advocates Mob: 9818239462 Email: [email protected]

¶4

versus

¶5

MR PANKAJ NAGDEV AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Mr. Siddharth Shankar, Mr. Aashutosh Sharma and Ms. Aadiya Sinha, Advs. for R-1 & 2 Mob: 9811713162 Email: [email protected]

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

%

13.03.2026

The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, for adjudication of disputes, which have arisen between the parties in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 08^th August, 2022.

¶11

The said MoU pertains to division and allocation of business territories, operational rights, assets and immovable properties of respondent no. 3-company and Late Mr. Jetha Nand Nagdev, who was the father of

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 16/03/2026 at 17:00:45

¶15

petitioner and respondent no. 1 and the husband of respondent no. 2. The disputes between the parties arise out of non-performance/non-execution of various obligations under the MoU.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the MoU dated 08^th August, 2022 between the parties, which contains an Arbitration Clause, i.e., Clause 4 in the following manner: “

¶17

”

¶18

It is further submitted that a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

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 16/03/2026 at 17:00:45

¶21

Act, invoking aforesaid Clause 4, was sent to the respondents vide a letter dated 23^rd January, 2026.

¶22

Pursuant to receipt of the said notice, only respondent no. 2 reverted to the same by rejecting the name of the proposed Arbitrator, while respondent no. 1 did not issue any response.

¶23

Thus, the present petition has been filed.

¶24

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the claims as sought to be raised by the petitioner are not arbitrable, as the same ought to be a subject matter of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).

¶25

However, the aforesaid submissions are disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶26

On a pointed query, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the claims of the petitioner will go beyond Rs. 50 Crores.

¶27

He further submits that the arbitration ought to be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”).

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that while reserving their objections as aforesaid, they have no objection if the disputes are referred to an Arbitrator.

¶29

Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the following directions are issued:

¶30

i) Justice (Retd.) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, (Mob: +91-9818000370) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶31

ii) The arbitration proceedings shall be held under the aegis and Rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 16/03/2026 at 17:00:45

¶35

Shah Road, New Delhi (“DIAC”) .

¶36

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

¶37

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court.

¶38

v) It shall be open to the respondents to raise counter-claims, if any, in the arbitration proceedings.

¶39

vi) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including, as to the arbitrability and maintainability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counterclaims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned Arbitrator.

¶40

vii) The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two (02) weeks from the date of appointment of the Arbitrator by the DIAC.

¶41

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶42

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, DIAC, as well as the learned Arbitrator, for information and compliance.

¶43

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶44

MARCH 13, 2026 ak

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

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 16/03/2026 at 17:00:45

Goldy Nagdev v. Mr Pankaj Nagdev and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goldy Nagdev v. Mr Pankaj Nagdev and Ors.

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

Sepc Limited Earlier Known as Shirarm Epc Limited India Vs Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr.

Mr. Rajanish Dubey & Anr. Vs M/S S B Landcon Private Limited & Ors.

Bhupendra Kumar Arora (Huf) Vs Taurus International (Projects) Private Limited and Ors.

Neelima Chimalwar & Anr. Vs Shubhra Khanna & Anr.

Hindustan Scouts and Guides Association through Its National Secretary Champat Singh Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railways

Umesh Varma Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. & Ors.