VCARE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD v. MR NIKHIL RAI

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the board resolution, appended at Page 55 of the present petition, has been erroneously filed. He seeks to file the correct board resolution. Let the same be filed within a period of two days.

SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)

2. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The disputes between the parties have arisen in context of an Employment Agreement dated 08.06.2016. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause as under:- “13.Arbitration. In case of any dispute or differences between the Parties in respect to the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement, or any other dispute whatsoever in connection with or relating to this Agreement, the same shall be settled by arbitration by reference to a single arbitrator appointed jointly by the Company and NR (“Arbitrator”). The decision of the Arbitrator in this regard shall be final and binding on both Parties. The venue of the Arbitration shall be New Delhi, India and the language of the Arbitration proceedings would be English.”

3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, an invocation notice dated 23.10.2021 was sent by petitioner to the respondent. However, the same was not responded to by the respondent. Hence, the present petition came to be filed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously opposes the present petition. He submits that the claims sought to be raised by the petitioner are hopelessly time barred. He further submits that the agreement between the parties was novated by virtue of MoU dated 10.05.2012, as a result of which, the claims under the Employment Agreement stood distinguished. However, he does not dispute the existence of the Arbitration Agreement in the Employment Agreement dated 08.06.2016.

5. It has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Ltd. v. Krish Spinning 2024 SCC OnLine 1754, that the scope of examination in the present proceedings is confined to ascertaining whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties.

6. In the present case, the existence of the arbitration agreement is evident from a perusal of an Employment Agreement.

7. In the circumstances, there is no impediment to appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

8. Accordingly, Mr. Amit Pai, Advocate (Mob.: +91 9953557798), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

9. The respondent shall be entitled to raise preliminary objections as regards jurisdiction/arbitrability, which shall be decided by the learned arbitrator, in accordance with law.

10. The learned Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties requisite disclosures as required under Section 12 of the A&C Act.

11. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with IVth Schedule to the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.

12. The parties shall share the arbitrator’s fee and arbitral costs, equally.

13. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

14. Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of this court on the merits of the case.