Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Akshat Kumar Anchan - Respondent
Arb.P. 433 of 2021 & I.As. 9493 of 2021, 9494 of 2021 and 9495 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021
The scope of judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving challenges regarding coercion and arbitrability for the Arbitral Tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 - Section 11(6A) and Section 16 - Employer seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator due to disputes with former employee - Court finds existence of arbitration agreement not in dispute - Respondent claims coercion in signing Appraisal Letter; however, such contentions are to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Employment Law - Scope of Judicial Review in Arbitration - Court's role limited to determining existence of arbitration agreement and retaining jurisdictional objections for Arbitral Tribunal - The court cannot engage in merits of the case at this stage. (Paras 5.1 and 6)
Findings of Court:
The petition for the appointment of an arbitrator is allowed; Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the Appraisal Letter dated 11th July, 2018.
Issues: Whether coercion in signing the Appraisal Letter and the nature of the dispute should be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes minimal judicial interference in arbitration matters, maintaining that disputes regarding the alleged coercion and employment status are for the Arbitral Tribunal to resolve.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of arbitration agreement is fundamental. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent raises objections to arbitration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's limited jurisdiction on arbitration matters. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and procedural guidelines. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order allowing arbitration. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):
1. M/s Saksham Impex Pvt. Ltd. - the employer, contends that disputes have arisen with its erstwhile employee Mr. Akshat Kumar Anchan, and the court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
2. The Arbitration Agreement is contained in an Appraisal Letter dated 11th July, 2018, signed on 23rd July, 2018. The said document is accompanied with annexures, which contain an arbitration agreement at clause No. 27, that reads as under:
"27. General
A. Arbitration Clause
In case of any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto as regards interpretation or implementation of any the terms and conditions, the same shall be resolved through arbitration and such arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 and rules there under. The venue of the arbitration shall be only at Delhi and procedure of the Arbitration shall be as may be decided by the Arbitrators.
B. Governing Law; Consent to Personal Jurisdiction:
The laws of the State of Delhi will govern the Terms and Conditions of employment, and you hereby expressly consent to the personal jurisdiction of the High Court located therein for any lawsuit filed there by the Company arising from or relating to my assignment."
3. The existence of and the signatures on the afore-said document, are not in dispute.
4. However, Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, strongly opposes the petition for appointment on several grounds which are urged as follows:
4.1. Respondent was appointed to his job position in the Company vide an Appointment Letter dated 2nd April 2018. The said document would govern the terms of appointment.
4.2. Respondent has raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Pushpa Bhavan, Labour Office, Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi against the Petitioner and its management for unfair labour practices against the Respondent. The Conciliation Officer has fixed the matter for 20th September, 2021.
4.3. In June, 2018, Ms. Akansha Shah and Mr. Rahul Sachdev, part of management of the Petitioner company, on instructions from Managing Director, called the Respondent for a meeting. During this meeting, the management asked the Respondent to sign voluminous documents and papers, which were blank. When Respondent refused to oblige, the Petitioner was told that the documents were for the purpose of providing salary increment and disbursing bonus to the Respondent. In these circumstances, he was intimidated to sign the documents by threatening false prosecution. The Appraisal Letter dated 11th July, 2018, relied upon by the Petitioner for seeking appointment of the Arbitrator, was thus signed under coercion and by force.
4.4. In February 2019, Respondent resigned from Petitioner's employment as Assistant Beverage Innovation Manager. Thereafter the Respondent joined services of another organization -Monin India Private Limited which is the subsidiary of the Georges Monin SAS as an employee. There is no competition between the Petitioner and the present employer of the Respondent.
4.5. The Petitioner has deliberately and willfully concealed this fact, and for this reason, an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for the offence of perjury.
4.6. The Petitioner seeks to enforce negative covenant in the Appraisal Letter, which is not permissible. The Non-Compete Clause in the alleged Appraisal Letter dated 11th July, 2018, is in conflict with Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and was absent in the original Appointment Letter. This submission is
