$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 318/2026 M/S PATHKIND DIAGNOSTICS PVT LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate and Mr.

Kartik Malhotra, Advocate Mob: 9810091158 Email: anand.2905@gmail.com versus M/S VELMED HOSPITALS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 11.2 of the Pathology Services Agreement dated 23rd August, 2024 (“Pathology Agreement”).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1, through its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)/Authorized Representative (respondent no. 2), entered into the Pathology Agreement with the petitioner for providing pathology services, on the terms and conditions, as mutually agreed, and detailed under the said Pathology Agreement.

3. It is submitted that under Clause 4.11 of the said Pathology Agreement, it was obligatory upon the respondents to make payment to the petitioner, within the time stipulated therein, from the receipt of the invoice(s) raised by the petitioner, on a monthly basis.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner, during the course of services, carried out tests as per the requirements of respondents, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said Pathology Agreement. In furtherance of the said services provided by the petitioner to the respondents, the petitioner had raised certain bills and invoices.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per records maintained during the course of ordinary business by the petitioner, as on date, a sum of Rs. 22,27,351.20/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-One and Twenty Paise Only) is outstanding towards the services provided by the petitioner under the Pathology Agreement, after adjusting/considering all the amounts received and Tests Not Performed (“TNP”). The said amount remained outstanding, resulting in disputes between the parties.

6. It is submitted that Clause 11.2 of the Pathology Agreement provides an Arbitration Clause for resolution of the disputes between the parties through arbitration. The said Clause 11.2 reads as under:

7. It is further submitted that a notice dated 03^rd July, 2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act invoking the Arbitration Clause and for referral of the dispute to the arbitration was sent to respondents, wherein, option to hold discussions to resolve and settle the issue regarding the outstanding amount through conciliation and negotiations was also provided. By way of the said notice, the Pathology Agreement was also terminated, as contemplated under Clause 5.1 of the Pathology Agreement.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a reply dated 28th July, 2025 to the aforesaid notice was received from the respondents, whereby, the respondents denied the submissions made in the notice dated 03^rd July, 2025, vaguely alleged that the invoices issued by petitioner exceeded the agreed rates, and asked for allegedly corrected and reconciled account statement, reflecting the purported concessional rates.

9. It is further submitted that in the said reply, no mutually convenient place/ date to resolve and settle the issue regarding the outstanding amount through conciliation and negotiations was given by the respondents, which reflects that the respondents were merely interested in keeping the dispute pending.

10. It is, thus, submitted that the mechanism provided under the said Pathology Agreement for resolution of disputes through conciliation has been adhered to by the petitioner, however, the same has been without any result. Hence, the present petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator has been filed.

11. Issue notice to the respondents, by all modes.

12. Let reply be filed, within a period of four weeks.

13. Rejoind