IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2024 Pankaj Madaan .. Applicant Versus HealthAssure Private Limited .. Respondent Ms Manini Bharati i/b. Mr. Suyash More, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Mohit Khanna a/w. Ms Kareena Tahilramani i/b. Mr. Pravin Patil, Advocates for Respondent.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Reserved on : February 10, 2025 Pronounced on : February 20, 2025 JUDGMENT :-

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) in connection with disputes and differences relating to a letter of appointment dated July 5, 2021 (“Appointment Letter”) by which the Applicant was appointed as a Chief Distribution Officer by the Respondent, which is engaged in healthcare-related services. The parties also executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated July 1, 2021 governing employee stock options to which the Applicant would be entitled.

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR D 20 a 2 te 5 : .02.20

2. The Applicant’s employment with the Respondent commenced on July 1, 2021 and ended on December 31, 2022. According to the Applicant, there were delays in paying his salary and eventually he resigned from his position. However, his dues allegedly remained unpaid. Several emails written by the Applicant between February 3, 2023 and May 29, 2023, were of no avail.

3. A petition under Section 9 of the Act, being Arbitration Petition (L) No. 28717 of 2023 (“Section 9 Petition”) was filed, which led to a Learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated December 15, 2023, granting ad interim reliefs by directing the Respondent to issue the relieving letter and to issue Form 16 under the tax laws. On December 15, 2023, the Respondent had resisted the ad interim reliefs and sought time to file a reply. The Learned Single Judge granted three weeks to do so. No reply had been filed even when another Learned Single Judge considered the matter on March 28, 2024. Recording the history of the listing of the matter, the Learned Single Judge directed the Respondent to deposit in Court, a sum of Rs. 9,18,648/-, which corresponds to the salary amount claimed by the Applicant. Then too, the Respondent had sought time to file a reply and had unsuccessfully resisted the prayer for deposit.

4. It is clear from the record that the Appointment Letter indeed has an arbitration agreement (found at Page 48 of the Application), which is not reproduced here in the interest of brevity. Suffice it to say that the arbitration clause simply provides for disputes being resolved by arbitration subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai.

5. By an invocation notice dated July 5, 2023 issued by lawyers for the Applicant, the outstanding amounts claimed by the Applicant were articulated, the nature of the dispute between the parties was recorded, and arbitration was invoked by suggesting the names of three arbitrators, requesting the Respondent to select one of the names. By a reply dated July 18, 2023, lawyers on behalf of the Respondent did not deny the existence of an arbitration agreement. Instead, the Respondent purported to nominate an arbitrator, and stated that two arbitrators may appoint the third arbitrator, for the arbitration to be conducted by a three-member arbitral tribunal.

6. The material on record would indicate that the Respondent wrote an email dated October 9, 2022 and stated that the official date of resignation would be treated as October 1, 2022, and with a three- month notice period, the employment would cease on December 31, 2022. On October 8, 2022, the Respondent raised issues about the sales effected by the Respondent’s sales team during the Applicant’s tenure and stated that the Applicant should recover dues from the clients, failing which he would be guilty of non-compliance with performance of his duties, failing which the Respondent would terminate