Allowed

Henry Harvin India Education LLP v. Abhishek Sharma & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Oct 2024ARB.P./374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes with seven former employees under employment agreements containing Clause 14.1 arbitration clauses. Respondents did not appear despite service. The court allowed the petition and referred seven separate disputes to one sole arbitrator under DIAC.

What did the court decide?

Sole Arbitrator (Sunil Kumar Mittal) appointed; seven separate disputes referred to him under DIAC; parties to approach within two weeks.

Henry Harvin India Education LLP Vs Abhishek Sharma & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 374/2024

¶4

HENRY HARVIN INDIA EDUCATION LLP .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Anam Siddiqui, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

ABHISHEK SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

01.10.2024

This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

¶14

The petitioner is an education technology firm offering professional certification diploma/degree programs online and offline.

¶15

The respondent Nos. 1-7 sought employment with the petitioner and separate employment agreements were signed between the parties.

¶16

The dates of the Employment Agreements are as under:-

¶17

S. No.	Respondent	Agreement Date
1.	Abhishek Sharma (R-1)	13.03.2023
2.	Sameer Bose (R-2)	10.03.2023
3.	Harish Mishra (R-3)	10.03.2023

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:05:43

¶19

4.	Ravi Kumar (R-4)	29.06.2023
5.	Dipshikha Singh (R-5)	13.03.2023
6.	Sudhir Kumar (R-6)	13.10.2021
7.	Prem Chandra Mishra (R-7)	04.05.2023

¶20

The Employment Agreements contain an arbitration clause, being Clause 14.1, which read as under:-

¶21

“ Dispute Resolution

¶22

14.1. In the event of any disputes, differences, controversies and questions directly or indirectly arising at anytime hereafter between the Parties or their respective representatives or assigns under, out of, in connection with, or in relation to, this Agreement (or the subject matter of this Agreement) including, without limitation, all disputes, differences, controversies and questions relating to the validity, interpretation, construction, performance and enforcement of any provision of this Agreement, or as to rights, liabilities or duties of the Parties (here in after referred to as a Dispute"), the same shall be referred to binding arbitration at the request of any Party, in writing, in accordance with the 'Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or alteration thereof for the time being in force. The arbitral tribunal shall comprise I(one) arbitrator to be appointed by the Firm, whose decision in relation to any such Dispute shall be final and binding on the Parties hereto.”

¶23

Since the respondents violated the terms of the Employment Agreements, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide Legal Notice dated 03.11.2023.

¶24

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition and notice was issued on 18.03.2024.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner has handed over an Affidavit of Service, which is taken on record, wherein respondent Nos. 1,3,4,7 have been served at their respective email ids. The Respondent Nos. 2,5,6 were already been served as per Affidavit of Service dated 01.07.2024.

¶27

Despite service, there is nobody appearing for the respondent. 10. The separate disputes between the petitioner and each of the respondents (seven separate disputes and seven separate references) are referred to the sole arbitrator.

¶28

For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

¶29

i. Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Advocate (Mob. No. 9811040423) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶30

ii. The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’).

¶31

iii. The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018.

¶32

iv. The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference.

¶33

v. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-

¶34

¶35

claims and merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶36

vi. The parties shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from the date of upload of this order.

¶37

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶39

OCTOBER 1, 2024/NG

¶40

Henry Harvin India Education LLP v. Abhishek Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Henry Harvin India Education LLP v. Abhishek Sharma & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ares Investment Llc Vs International Print -O-Pac Ltd. & Ors.

Lion Tooth Studios Private Limited Vs Mxp Media India Limited & Anr.

Alt Digital Media Entertainment Limited Vs Mx Media and Entertainment Pte Ltd.

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Paramjeet Singh Arora & Ors.

Golden Falcon Industries Ltd. Vs Livlong Insurance Brokers Ltd. & Anr.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Uniper Global Commodities Se