Concertina Coils Private Limited v. Navdeep Sharma

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1], seeking the following reliefs:

2. The present disputes are stated to have arisen out of the Letter of Engagement dated 22.04.2025 as entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, as well as the Secondment and Letter of Engagement, which was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 on 23.06.2025 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Agreements”). Both the Letters of Engagement contain identical dispute resolution clauses, being Clause 10 and 11 respectively thereof. The said clause is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

3. After advancing some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit, on instructions, that the present matter be referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator instead of adjudication of the present Petition on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, while she is amenable to the present Petition being referred to arbitration, certain interim reliefs may be granted. This is necessitated by the conduct of the Respondents, who have been approaching and soliciting business from clients with whom contractual engagements subsist in favour of the Petitioners.

5. She further submits that such conduct, namely the direct solicitation of the said clients, is in clear contravention of the terms of the Agreements as entered between the parties and is manifestly prejudicial to the interests of the Petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the averments and submissions as sought to be made are incorrect.

7. He submits that, at no point in time, have his clients, Mr. Navdeep Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, acted in any manner contrary to the terms of the Agreements.

8. He further submits that no solicitation of work, as alleged by the Petitioners, has at any point been undertaken by the Respondents. Though he would contest the assertions and submissions made by the Petitioners in their Petition as well as before this Court, he is ad idem that the disputes may be referred to arbitration.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. In view of the fact that learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the disputes as raised herein may be referred to arbitration, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint a Sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon the said disputes.

11. Further, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the statutory requirements of initiation of separate proceedings under Section 11 of the Act and notice invoking Arbitration under Section 21 of the Act are dispensed with.

12. Accordingly, this Court hereby requests Mr. Anoop Bagai, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 8447837615) to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

13. The learned Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures as required under Section 12(2) of the Act.