JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”) raises some important questions of law inter alia pertaining to the interpretation of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. By way of the instant petition, the Petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the impugned arbitral award dated 16th March 2015 passed by the learned sole arbitrator, Mr. Divya Darshan Sharma in the case titled as CL Educate Ltd. Vs. Monika Oli.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that an Employment Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and M/s Comprehensive Education and IT Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘CEITI”), a Dubai based entity which was authorized to run Career Launcher test-prep courses in the United Arab Emirates (hereinafter referred to as “UAE”). M/s CL Educate Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent”) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. By way of the Employment Agreement, the Petitioner was appointed as the Principal Consultant for its Dubai office and she was entrusted with the responsibility for enrollment and collection of fees from students for the test-prep courses in Dubai. She was also required to bear the costs in relation to rent, marketing and sales, course material, salary for faculty, among other things.

3. For the 1st year, as per Clause 2 of the Employment Agreement, the Petitioner was entitled to 75% of the net collections arising out of IITJEE, AIEEE, CBSE XII Program, IIT Foundation IX and X, and 85% of the net collections for all other programs. It was also agreed by the parties that the collections made by the Petitioner would be deposited in Career Launcher's account and on a monthly basis, the Petitioner's share would be transferred to her account. From the next year onwards, it was agreed between the parties that the percentage of net collections falling to the share of the Petitioner would be mutually discussed. It was further stipulated that from the 2nd year, all collections would accrue to the Petitioner as her top-line and only remit either 25%/15% (depending on the product) to Career Launcher.

4. On 6th November 2013, the Petitioner received a legal notice on behalf of the Respondent seeking payment of various amounts, including AED 6,25,775/- on account of alleged short deposit of fee collected by the Petitioner and AED 13,92,000/- on account of fee allegedly collected by the Petitioner against the installment due on 31st January 2013 which was not deposited in the account of the Respondent. On 16th November 2013, the Petitioner responded to the above legal notice dated 6th November 2013, denying the claims of the Respondent and alleging that the Respondent has issued the legal notice in order to set up a false case against the Petitioner as she had on previous occasion raised requests with the Respondent to settle the accounts between the parties.

5. The Respondent invoked Clause 10 which contained the arbitration clause and provided that any dispute arising between the parties would be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director of Career Launcher India Ltd. Having its jurisdiction/place at New Delhi. A sole arbitrator was appointed and the Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. The arbitral tribunal passed the impugned arbitral award by which the claims raised by the Respondent were allowed against the Petitioner.

6. Aggrieved with the passing of the impugned arbitral award, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

SUBMISSIONS

(on behalf of the petitioner)

7. Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, in support of the instant petition has strenuously argued that the impugned arbitral award is wholly illegal as the Petitioner has never received the mandatory notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Ac