JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Original Petition filed under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) To appoint an Arbitrator in respect to the monetary claim arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 and entered into between the Petitioner and the respondents.

b. To direct the respondents to pay the cost of the petition.

1. This petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, under the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding, she has to be paid share out of the profits earned by the School run by them and that, she has not been paid the same and under those circumstances, she has raised the dispute. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 contains an arbitration clause which is extracted hereunder:

8. Any dispute arising out of this understanding shall be referred to arbitration as laid down by the Indian Arbitration Act.”

3. A counter has been filed by the respondents 1 & 2 stating as follows:

(a) Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 was never acted upon between the parties.

(b) The petitioner-s claim is not supported by any evidence to show that it is an arbitrable claim.

(c) The petitioner has not given the correct facts, which in other-words, misleading the court with false facts.

(d) There is absolutely no cause of action for the claim made by the petitioner as the petitioner has not quantified her claim.

(e) The petitioner has involved herself in a fishing expedition, by making a very bald claim, not giving basic facts or basic documents in support of her claim;

(f) The Petitioner has not come to court with clean hands.

(g) The petitioner has attempted to misuse the process of law with bald averments and has attempted to make a wrongful gain out of the same which amounts to clear abuse of process of law.

(h) The petitioner-s claim is vexatious.

4. Heard Mr.J.Pravin, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Jesus Moris Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Haribabu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 and in particular, he referred to the arbitration clause contained therein. He would also submit that as per the Memorandum of Understanding, the respondents have not paid the share of the petitioner in respect of income derived by the first respondent out of the School run by it. He also drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 21.07.2019 sent by the petitioner calling upon the respondents to give consent for appointment of Mr.S.Anbalagan, an Advocate as an Arbitrator for deciding the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ever since 2016 when the school was making profits, the respondents have not paid the share of the petitioner as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012. He would submit that the claim is not barred by law of limitation as the petitioner is entitled to recover her share for the last three years even though, the petitioner had filed the present Original Petition in the year 2020.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the claim made by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Further he would submit that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 was never acted upon and infact, the petitioner was only employed under the first respondent Trust who was running the school which was also acknowledged by the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.08.2012 was acted upon and that, she is entitled for a share in the income derived by the