PRATEEK GOEL vs DHAKKSHINAMOORTHY NATARAJAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * 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 JUDGMENT HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, 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 24.11.20202. 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 1 Act 2 MoU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 2001/2024 Page 1 of 10 By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:24.01.2026 15:34:32 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