Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited v. The Director General, Directorate General Of Health Services & ORS.

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6614/2026 JEENA SIKHO LIFECARE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Satyam Tandon, Advocate.

versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Ms Avni Singh (Panel CounselGNCTD) with Mr Vaibhav Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 14.05.2026 CM APPL. 32514/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6614/2026 and CM APPL. 32513/2026 3.

The petition is for the following reliefs:

"(A) lssue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith release the outstanding dues of Rs. 8,91,11,243l- along with interest at a reasonable commercial rate from the date the amounts became due ti ll actual realization;

(B) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent no.l and to 2 to direct Respondent No. 3 to forthwith refund Rs. 24,00,000/- held under the twelve (12) Bank Guarantees which have: (i) irrevocably lapsed on 22.09.2024 without any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

written invocation; and (ii) could never lawfully have been invoked since the Agreements were never formally terminated under Clause 20 and no breach was ever adjudicated against the Petitioner - along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual realization; (C) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that: (i) the twelve (12) Bank Guarantees have irrevocably lapsed and expired on 22.09.2024 without valid invocation; (ii) the Bank Guarantees could not lawfully have been invoked in the absence of formal termination of the Agreements and adjudicated breach; and (iii) Respondent No. 3 has no legal authority to retain Rs. 24,00,000/- any further;

(D) Issue a writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. I to pass a reasoned speaking order on the Petitioner's legal notice dated 23.04.2026 within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate;" 4.

The petitioner claims to a reputed healthcare provider operating multiple hospitals and was empanelled under the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme (DGEHS).

5.

It is stated that the petitioner rendered extensive medical services to the beneficiaries under the DGEHS. The petitioner, however, complaints that the pending dues amounting to Rs. 8,91,11,2431- along with refund/ discharge of Bank Guarantees aggregating to Rs. 24,00,000/- and interest has not been released by the respondents-Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pursuing his claim for a considerable long time and eventually served a legal notice dated 23.04.2026 upon the respondents- GNCTD. 7.

Neither any response was communicated to the petitioner nor its legal notice has been acted upon. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

8.

The Court finds that there exists an arbitration clause under the Agreement dated 22.03.2022 executed between respondent no.1 and the petitioner, and, in case, any dispute has arisen, the same is amenable to be The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

adjudicated by the Arbitrator as per the terms and conditions therein. 9.

The petitioner, however, complaints that, as of now, the respondents have not disputed the entitlement of the petitioner, and, therefore, the amount remains undisputed.

10.

The aforesaid aspect will have to be considered by the respondents. The Court, thus, directs the respondents-GNCTD to act upon the legal notice dated 23.04.2026 sent to them by the petitioner. If the amount is disputed, let an appropriate speaking response be issued and communicated to the petitioner enabling it to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. In any case, let the said response be communicated to the petitioner within three months from the date of receiving a copy of this order passed today. 11.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MAY 14, 2026 aks The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.