Sanjeevani Ayurveda v. The Director General Directorate General of Health Services Govt of NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 18 Nov 2024 · 2024:DHC:8874
Sachin Datta
ARB.P. 1743/2024
2024:DHC:8874
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising from a healthcare services agreement, affirming the mandatory nature of arbitration agreement enforcement.

Full Text
Translation output
ARB.P. 1743/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.11.2024
ARB.P. 1743/2024
SANJEEVANI AYURVEDA, MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma and Ms. Shivali, Advs.
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Udit Malik, ASC (Civil) along
WITH
Mr. Vishal Chanda, Ms. Rima Rao, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the A&C Act’) seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

2. The factual background of the matter is that the respondent issued an offer letter dated 28.09.2021, inviting applications for the empanelment of hospitals and diagnostic centres to provide healthcare services to beneficiaries under the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS). The petitioner was duly empanelled by DGEHS through Order dated 08.02.2022.

3. Thereafter, the parties entered into an agreement dated 27.10.2021 (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’). As per the Agreement, the petitioner was obligated to provide healthcare services to DGEHS beneficiaries within prescribed rates.

4. The arbitration clause in the Agreement between the parties is in the following terms: -

“29. In the event of any question, dispute or difference whatsoever at any time arising under the conditions of Agreement or in any other manner under this Agreement or in any way relating there-to or the true meaning or interpretation of any of the provisions thereof (except any matters for which the decision is specifically provided for in the conditions of the Agreement), the same shall be referred to for decision to a sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of Delhi or his nominee and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. In the event of the arbitrator appointed by the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of Delhi, or his nominee dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being incapable or unable to act for any reason, whatsoever, it shall be lawful for the Lt. Governor, N.C.T. of Delhi or his nominee to appoint another arbitrator in place of outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. Subject to the above the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any modification or replacement and the rules hereunder and any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause.”

5. The empanelment of the petitioner under DGEHS was withdrawn with effect from 13.03.2023 by the respondent vide office memorandum dated 10.03.2023.

6. Disputes between the parties arose when despite providing treatments to DGEHS beneficiaries till 13.03.2023, the respondent failed to reimburse the petitioner for an outstanding amount of ₹39,38,360.

7. Numerous written representations were made by the petitioner, including communications dated 25.06.2023, 12.10.2023, and 26.10.2023. However, no payments were released.

8. On 25.06.2024, the petitioner issued a legal notice demanding payment of the outstanding amount, while also invoking the arbitration clause in the event the respondent failed to settle the dues. In response, the respondent, through a reply dated 13.08.2024, denied the petitioner’s claims, alleging that it was, in fact, the petitioner who had breached the terms of the contract.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court, through the present petition, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

10. The existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties is evident from the Agreement. In the circumstances, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties as mandated in terms of the judgements of Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (Supra), TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 755.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties and has no objection if an independent Sole Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

12. Accordingly, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate (Mob. No.: +91

9811136141) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties to the agreement dated 27.10.2021.

5,134 characters total

13. The respondent shall be entitled to raise preliminary objections, if any, as arbitrability/jurisdiction which shall be decided by the arbitrator, in accordance with law.

14. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosure as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

15. It is agreed between the parties that the arbitration shall take place under the aegis of and under the rules of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). It is directed accordingly.

16. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards merits or demerits thereof of the respective contentions of the parties, including as regards the jurisdictional objections raised by the respondent. It shall be open to the learned Sole Arbitrator to duly consider the same and pass appropriate order/s thereon.

17. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2024