ARB.P. 1493/2026 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010390902026 + ARB.P. 1493/2026 DR HARIT KUMAR CHATURVEDI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikrant Singh Blonia and Mr. Sushant Tomar, Advocates. versus MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Saraswat and Ms. Simran Malik, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 22.09.2026 I.A. 22732/2026 1. This application is filed on behalf of Petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption/permission to file synopsis and list of dates combining more than five pages. 2. For the reasons sated in the application, the same is allowed. Synopsis and list of dates is taken on record. 3. Application stands disposed of. ARB.P. 1493/2026 4. This petition is filed on behalf of Petitioner under Section 11 (4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:58 ARB.P. 1493/2026 5. The disputes which are subject matter of this petition, arise from Letter of Appointment dated 01.04.2016 under which Petitioner was appointed as Chairman of Max Institute of Cancer Care. Petitioner avers that on 17.03.2021, Respondent issued revised term sheet of engagement, reaffirming Petitioner’s designation and revising his compensation structure, which expressly provided that all other non-financial clauses of the Appointment Letter will remain unchanged, which included arbitration Clause 19(d). Respondent issued Letter of Award dated 01.11.2022, granting the Petitioner 96,154 Stock Options including 67,308 options linked to Individual Performance and under the stipulated vesting schedule, 20,192 Individual Performance-linked Stock Options were scheduled to vest in or about October, 2025. 6. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner informed the Respondent on 01.09.2025 that he did not wish to renew the contract and subsequently, shared a detailed growth chart with his entitlements towards variable compensation and while initially, Respondent informed that the issues were being discussed, later Respondent sought to terminate Petitioner’s engagement on 17.03.2026. On a demand being raised by the Petitioner of his outstanding contractual dues, disputes arose and Petitioner sent notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of 1996 Act on 25.06.2026, to which reply was sent on 15.07.2026, wherein Respondent refused to accept the proposed name of the Arbitrator. Respondent failed to appoint the Arbitrator under Clause 19(d) and hence, this petition was filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, on instructions, does not dispute the existence of the Arbitration Agreement though he denies the case set up by the Petitioner in the petition on merits, including the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:58 ARB.P. 1493/2026 allegations therein. 8. It is settled that the scope of enquiry in a petition under Section 11(6) of 1996 Act by a Referral Court is restricted to prima facie examining the existence of the Arbitration Agreement between the parties, which in this case is not disputed. Therefore, in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1 and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) a Joint Venture Company, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219, this Court finds no impediment in appointment of the Arbitrator. The Arbitration clause envisaging reference of disputes or any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Appointment Letter or breach, termination, existence or invalidity thereof to a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with 1996 Act, is extracted hereunder, for ease of reference:- “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this appointment letter or the breach, termination, existence or invalidity thereof (collectively "Dispute"), shall be referred to and finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as may be amended or replaced from time to time {the "Arbitration Act"), as in force at the time of reference of the Dispute, by a sole arbitrator, to be appointed by the Managing Director of the Company. The place of arbitration shall be Delhi. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted, and the award shall be made in English language.” 9. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sharad Arvind Bobde, former Chief Justice of India (Mobile No. 9871234803) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act, as agreed between the parties. 10. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of 1996 Act before entering upon reference. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:58 ARB.P. 1493/2026 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. 12. It is left open to the Respondent to prefer a counter claim, if any, before the learned Arbitrator. 13. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/AK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:58