The court affirmed the enforceability of an arbitration agreement and the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, despite challenges regarding the validity of signatures and terms of the agreement.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties under a "Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement" ["the Agreement"] dated 01.07.2019.

2. The contention of the petitioner, which is engaged in the business of providing industrial solutions, is that it issued an offer letter dated 10.07.2018 to the respondent to join its employment and the respondent accepted the same and joined the employment of the petitioner on 17.07.2018. Following his appointment, the respondent signed the Agreement dated 01.07.2019. The recital to the Agreement notes that the respondent was designated as the Project Head - IT & Networking of the petitioner-company and that he had accepted the employment with the employer vide an acceptance letter dated 17.07.2018. The Agreement contains a non-competition clause in clause 2.1 which restrains the employee [respondent herein] from engaging or participating directly or indirectly in a competing business during the period of his employment and for a period of one year thereafter. The consideration under the Agreement is stipulated to be the emoluments paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The Agreement contains an arbitration clause in clause 7.3 which reads as follows:

"7.3 In the event the efforts and discussions described in Clause 7.2 fail to resolve the matter, such dispute, controversy or claim shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. It is further agreed that the place of arbitration shall be Gurgaon and the Arbitrator shall be appointed mutually by the Parties. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Parties."

3. Ms. Tia Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent, in violation of the aforesaid agreement, constituted a rival business by the name of M/s Gangatika Technologies, and solicited business from the petitioner's clients. There was some correspondence between the parties inter se, following which the petitioner, through counsel, addressed a legal notice dated 03.02.2021 to the respondent alleging violation of the Agreement by commencement of the competing proprietorship business.

4. Ms. Majumdar refers me to a communication, sent through counsel on 17.02.2021, wherein the respondent stated that the respondent had joined the petitioner's organisation and been issued an employment letter. However, it was contended that the Agreement was not part of the employment letter or the terms and conditions of the respondent's employment, that it was a one way document for which no consideration was paid and it was therefore void. It was further stated that Agreement lost its validity in December 2020, as the respondent recalled, at this stage, that no copy of the Agreement was ever supplied to him. The respondent alleged that he was not part of M/s Gangatika Technologies during the period of his employment. He asserted a claim against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.66,086/-.

5. The petitioner finally invoked the arbitration clause in the Agreement by a legal notice dated 08.06.2021. The respondent again, by a notice dated 03.09.2021 took the same position with regard to the validity of the Agreement.

6. The respondent has also since filed a suit [CS No. 4042/2021] before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, seeking a