The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, based on the definitions of 'court' and 'place' of arbitration, and the principles laid down in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

The petitioner vide the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has sought the following reliefs:

“a) Appoint an Arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to adjudicate disputes between the Petitioner and Respondents;

b) Pass any such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a journalist with over 16 years of experience having Master's Degree in Economics from Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University and has extensive work experience in print and TV journalism. The respondent is a company engaged in the business of broadcast, production, programming and telecast of English News Television channel ‘NewsX’. The parties entered into an Agreement under which the petitioner was engaged as a consultant with the office designation of ‘Associate Executive Editor’ and was entitled to receive a monthly fee of INR 2,50,367.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner provided the best of her services to the respondent and worked even during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the respondent from January 2020 onward, started withholding the petitioner's monthly emolument on some pretext or the other and on 21st May 2020, without any prior discussion with the petitioner, unceremoniously relieved her from services.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is withholding pending dues that total to over INR 15,02,202 and has even failed to deposit TDS as deducted from her salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent did not respond to the Notice of Invocation of Arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 25th August 2021. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the instant petition be allowed and a sole arbitrator be appointed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Act is erroneous and that there are no dues pending with the respondent that are to be disbursed in favor of the petitioner as per Clause 4.4 of the Agreement dated 1st October 2019.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that upon termination, no payment of obligation would arise, thereby, not giving rise to the need of issuance of a TDS certificate in the first place. It is submitted that the ‘Dispute Resolution’ clause would only arise at the existence of a valid dispute and here, there is none.

7. It is further submitted that even so, the governing law for the Dispute Resolution bars adjudication by this Court. It is submitted that the exclusive jurisdiction of the matter at hand is placed with the courts at Noida. Reliance in this regard is placed on Clause 7.8 of the Agreement between the parties. It is therefore submitted that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case at hand.

8. It is submitted that the present reference to arbitration is based upon vexatious claims without any basis or indication of proof thereto. Therefore, this Court may dismiss the present Arbitration Petition as being devoid of merits.

9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

10. The question before this Court is whether or not it has the jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

11. The Arbitration Act, 1996 refers to “the place” of arbitration and defines “court”, and indicates which courts have jurisdiction in relation to arbitral proceedings in several sections in Part I. Section 2(1)(e) and Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are as follows:

“2. Definitions.—(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires—

***

(e) “Court” means—

(i) in the case of an