Delhi High Court
ARB.P./1645/2026 of SIEMENS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE DEAN, MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, & ANR. on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010434172026 + ARB.P. 1645/2026 SIEMENS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Govind Rishi, Ms. Kriti Krishna, Mr. Aman Kumar and Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Advocates. versus THE DEAN, MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, &
$~88
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010434172026
+
ARB.P. 1645/2026
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Govind Rishi, Ms. Kriti Krishna,
Mr. Aman Kumar and Ms. Anjali
Chaturvedi, Advocates.
versus
THE DEAN, MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL MEDICAL
COLLEGE, & ANR.
....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tarun Johri and Mr. Ankur
Gupta, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
16.09.2026
1. The instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the Petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which have arisen between the parties in terms of Clause 20 of the Supply Order dated 22.12.2021 and Clause 30 of the Domestic Tender Enquiry Document bearing No. HITES/PCD/PRECLINICAL/RC-01/18-19.
2. The facts of the case reveal that goods were supplied to Respondent No.1 on the contract issued by Respondent No.2. It is stated that the Petitioner was awarded the contract vide Supply Order dated 22.12.2021 bearing No. HITES/PCD/MP/AIIMS-IV/RC-01/21-22/5827 for the supply of ABG Machines for various Govt. Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
3. It is stated that a Consignee Receipt Certificate (CRC) acknowledging the equipment had been received in good condition was issued by Respondent No.1 on 27.03.2024.
4. It is stated that on 16.09.2024 issued a Final Acceptance Certificate (FAC) to the Petitioner after installation, commissioning, testing and successful trial run of the equipment entitling the Petitioner for 100% of the payment consideration of Rs. 77,88,000/-.
5. It is stated that despite repeated requests, the Respondents failed to release the outstanding dues of the Petitioner. It is stated that on 24.06.2025, Respondent No.1 informed the Petitioner that the responsibility of payment of outstanding dues lies with Respondent No.2, and therefore, the Petitioner vide letter dated 24.06.2025 requested Respondent No.2 to release the outstanding dues.
6. It is stated that Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 15.07.2025 addressed to Respondent No.1 reiterated that Respondent No.1 is the paying authority in terms of Clause 11 of the NOA, and conveyed that the Petitioner is entitled to 100% of the outstanding payment and request Respondent No.1 to release the outstanding dues of the Petitioner.
7. It is stated that since Respondent No.1 failed to release the outstanding amount to the Petitioner, the Petitioner issued notice dated 02.01.2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act calling upon the Respondents to release a sum of Rs.77,88,000/-along with interest @ 2% per month.
8. The notice under Section 21 was replied to by Respondent No.2 on 05.02.2026 denying its liability to pay the outstanding amount contending that Respondent No.1 is the paying authority. However, it is stated that Respondent No.1 has neither replied to the said notice nor paid the outstanding dues to the Petitioner, and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition.
9. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 appears on advance notice.
10. Since the contract was issued by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 is not a signatory, this Court is inclined to refer the dispute between Petitioner and Respondent No.2 before the Arbitrator and the Petitioner can move an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC before the Arbitrator for impleading Respondent No.1, to whom goods were despatched under various orders and the recovery stands confirmed.
11. Accordingly, Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Advocate (Mob No: 9811041536) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
12. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would be subject to its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC.
13. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, within three weeks of entering reference.
14. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.
15. Needless to state, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties.
16. The present Petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 hsk