$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 12.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on:22.01.2026 + ARB.P. 2001/2024 PRATEEK GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanyam Jain, Advocate.

versus DHAKKSHINAMOORTHY NATARAJAN .....Respondent Through: Ms. Upasna Bakshi, Mr. Satish Kumar and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, whereby the Petitioner seeks the appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes stated to have arisen between the parties in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.11.2020, MoU

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act was duly issued on 11.03.2024; however, despite receipt thereof, the Respondent failed to act in accordance with the agreed procedure for appointment of an arbitrator, thereby Signature Not Verified necessitating the present petition before this Court.

3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner asserts that a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was advanced to the Respondent on 05.10.2020 for safe custody. It is the Petitioner’s case that the Respondent, without consent, utilised the said amount for his personal purposes.

4. It is averred by the Petitioner that thereafter, on 24.11.2020, the parties entered into a MoU at New Delhi, whereby the Respondent acknowledged the utilisation of the amount and undertook to repay the same on or before 01.02.2021. Along with the MoU, the Respondent also executed a Promissory Note and an Acknowledgment Receipt of the same date, and issued five cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each.

5. According to the Petitioner, despite repeated demands, the amount was not repaid and the cheques, when presented, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. This led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which are stated to be pending.

6. It is averred by the Petitioner that the MoU contains an arbitration clause (Clause 12) providing that disputes arising out of the transaction between the parties shall be resolved by arbitration, with the seat of arbitration being New Delhi.

7. Invoking the said clause, the Petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 06.03.2024, dispatched on 11.03.2024. The Respondent replied vide notice dated 28.03.2024, disputing the claims and declining reference to arbitration.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would contend that the MoU dated 24.11.2020 contains a valid and binding Signature Not Verified arbitration agreement governing the disputes between the parties. It would be submitted that disputes have admittedly arisen in relation to the said MoU and the underlying transaction, thereby giving rise to a cause for the invocation of arbitration.

9. Learned counsel would further submit that the arbitration clause was duly invoked by issuance of a notice under Section 21 of the Act; however, despite receipt of the said notice, the Respondent failed and neglected to act in accordance with the procedure agreed between the parties for the appointment of an arbitrator.

10. It is further contended that in view of the settled position of law, the clause providing for unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator by one party is no longer enforceable, and consequently, the Petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an independent and impartial Sole Arbitrator.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent would contend that the present petition is not maintainable and that the disputes sought to be referred to arbitration do not warrant the appointment of an arbitrator by this Court. It would further be submitted that the M