Here's a summary of a recent court decision about a money disagreement and the appointment of a mediator.
On January 22, 2026, the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi made a decision in a case between Prateek Goel and Dhakkshinamoorhty Natarajan. The disagreement was about an agreement signed on November 24, 2020, in New Delhi.
Prateek Goel said he lent Rs. 25,00,000 to Dhakkshinamoorhty Natarajan on October 5, 2020. The money was supposed to be kept safe, but Prateek claimed that Dhakkshinamoorhty used it for personal reasons. They agreed in the document that Dhakkshinamoorhty would pay back the money by February 1, 2021, and gave five checks as part of this agreement. However, these checks bounced because there wasn't enough money in the account, leading to legal action under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The agreement included a mediation clause stating that any disagreements would be solved through mediation in New Delhi. Prateek sent a notice to start mediation on March 11, 2024, but Dhakkshinamoorhty refused, saying that the agreement was signed under pressure.
Dhakkshinamoorhty argued that the agreement wasn't signed willingly and that the transaction was in cash, making it unenforceable. He also claimed the checks were not given voluntarily and challenged the court's authority, saying that the agreement was meant to be performed in Chennai.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that the mediation clause was valid and that the court in New Delhi had authority due to the agreed mediation location. The judge found no strong evidence of pressure from Dhakkshinamoorhty.
The court appointed Mr. Kanwaljeet Arora as the sole mediator to solve the disagreement. The mediation will follow the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
> "The mediation would take place under the guidance of the DIAC and would follow its rules."
The court ordered both parties to share the mediator's fees equally and left all decisions open for the mediator to make.
