DR MAHESH Y REDDY vs KEVIN MARCUS WILLIAM GOVINDER SINGH OLAUSSON

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.09.2025 IN THE MATTERS OF: + ARB.P. 150/2025 DR MAHESH Y REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Adv. versus KEVIN MARCUS WILLIAM GOVINDER SINGH OLAUSSON .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tamradhwaj Sharma, Adv. O-2 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 57/2025 & I.A 4380/2025 DR MAHESH Y REDDY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Adv. versus KEVIN MARCUS WILLIAM GOVINDER SINGH OLAUSSON .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tamradhwaj Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:27.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:15:21 KUMAR KAURAV and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. Mr. Ritesh Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in view of two agreements dated 01.09.2016 and 29.03.2022, there exists a valid arbitration clause and if any dispute arises between the parties, the same is amenable to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. 3. According to him, under the agreement, certain services were to be discharged/ rendered by the petitioner to the respondent as a consultant. He, therefore, contends that in lieu of the services having been rendered to the respondent, the petitioner is entitled for appropriate sum. According to him, as of now, a claim of Rs. 5.25 Crores is outstanding against the respondent which has not been paid. 4. The aforesaid submissions are vehemently opposed by Mr. Tamradhwaj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Mr. Sharma points o