Quick Summary: A recent court decision in New Delhi has decided that the disagreement between Rakesh Mahajan and Iftikhar Ahmed will be settled through arbitration. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar chose a single arbitrator to take care of the case, which involves a financial disagreement of about ₹9 crores.
The conflict started with an agreement dated March 16, 2023, between Rakesh Mahajan and Iftikhar Ahmed. The agreement included a rule for resolving disagreements through arbitration. When problems came up, Rakesh Mahajan sent a notice on March 6, 2025, asking for arbitration, but Iftikhar Ahmed did not agree that there were any disputes.
On February 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, was asked to appoint an arbitrator. The court noted that both parties, except one who didn't show up, agreed to arbitration. The court emphasized that its role was to check if there was an agreement to arbitrate, not to get into the details of the disagreement.
"The scope at the stage of Section 11 proceedings is akin to the eye of the needle test and is limited to the extent of finding a prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing beyond it."
Justice Manmohan Singh (Retd.) was chosen as the single arbitrator to handle the case. The arbitrator's job is to ensure a fair resolution, with costs shared equally by both parties.
"The learned sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures."
The amount in question is approximately ₹9 crores. This large sum shows the importance of having a careful and fair arbitration process to settle the financial disagreements between the parties.
The court also talked about a related request under a specific part of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which aimed to secure a certain amount. This request will now be handled under another section, allowing the arbitrator to make suitable decisions.
"Considering the fact that a learned Arbitrator has been appointed by this Court, this petition under section 9 may be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act."
The arbitration process is set to begin, with all parties waiting for a fair resolution to their financial disagreements. This case highlights the importance of arbitration in settling complex financial disagreements outside the traditional court system.
