Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute resolution clause was contained in an agreement between Respondents 1 and 2 only; no arbitration agreement existed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, so the petition was held not maintainable and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
NANDI MEDICOS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Mr. Naman Arora & Mr. Shubham Bhati, Advs.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
O R D E R % 08.04.2026
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 15/04/2026 at 11:14:10
take such steps as are available to him under the law, he has invited the Court to pass an order.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
APRIL 8, 2026/ v /va
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 15/04/2026 at 11:14:10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 so as to maintain a Section 11 petition for appointment of an arbitrator.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NANDI MEDICOS
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION
Ayush Services & Consultancy
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
