Dr Promod Kumar Kohli vs M/S Nayati Healthcare And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2742 Del

                          $~10(Original Side)
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +        ARB.P. 648/2021
                                   DR PROMOD KUMAR KOHLI              ..... Petitioner
                                               Through: Ms. Soumyashree Misra, Adv.

                                                     Versus

                                   M/S NAYATI HEALTHCARE AND
                                   RESEARCH PVT LTD AND ORS        ..... Respondents
                                                Through: Mr. Sumant De, Adv. for
                                                Respondent No.1
                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C .HARI SHANKAR

                                                    O R D E R (ORAL)

% 01.10.2021 (Video-Conferencing)

1. Mr. Sumant De, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, does not oppose the request of the petitioner to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration, keeping all contentions on merits alive.

2. The dispute apparently arises in the context of a Medical Services Agreement dated 24th May, 2017 executed between the petitioner and the respondents, in terms of which the petitioner was rendering professional services as Dean, Medical Education and Medico Legal Consultant at the hospital run by the respondents. The petitioner alleges default on the part of the respondents in paying his contractual dues.

3. In view of the fact the Respondent No.1 does not dispute the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:06.10.2021 09:52:27 prayer for referring the controversy to arbitration, I dispose of this petition by referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration, to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The arbitration would abide by the rules and regulations of the DIAC.

4. The arbitrator would also be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.

5. The arbitrator would furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.

6. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J OCTOBER 1, 2021 r.bararia

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:06.10.2021 09:52:27