✦ Delhi High Court

Judgment · High Court

ANY SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1111. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 11, 2025 Rahul

Judgment

Cause title

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1373/2025 GHALLA AND BHANSALI SECURITIES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Priya, Adv.

versus

DENTAMITRA HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 11.11.2025

1.

This Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the Master Facility Agreement dated 22.06.2023.

2.

It is stated that under the said Agreement, the Petitioner, which is a non-banking financial company, has sanctioned a loan of Rs.10 lakhs to the Respondents which was to be repaid by the Respondents in six equal monthly installments of Rs.1,78,741/- each. It is stated that the Respondents have failed to comply with their obligations and, therefore, disputes have arisen between the parties. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as on date about Rs.7,41,961/- is due and payable by the Respondent. 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 15/11/2025 at 11:58:24

3.

A notice dated 10.07.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents invoking Arbitration. It is stated that the Respondents, in their reply dated 22.08.2024, have admitted the liability of Rs.7,15,059/- but have remained silent on the resolution of disputes through arbitration. The Petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Petition.

4.

Notice in the Petition was issued on 02.09.2025. Affidavit of service has been filed. The affidavit of service indicates that the Respondents have been served through speed post. The postal report has also been enclosed along with the affidavit of service. Despite service there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents.

5.

In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties and there is an arbitration clause in the Agreement, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

6.

Accordingly, Mr. Anmol Sharma, Adv. (Mob: [REDACTED]) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

7.

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.

8.

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

9.

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator 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 15/11/2025 at 11:58:24 on their merits, in accordance with law.

10.

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits.

Operative part

11.

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J NOVEMBER 11, 2025 Rahul

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 11(6), 21.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Delhi High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments