2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
91 SPRINGBOARD BUSINESS HUB PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
BOSTON INSTITUTE OF ANALYTICS GLOBAL EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
ARB.P.-1953/2024
$~O-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1953/2024 Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
91 SPRINGBOARD BUSINESS HUB PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Shivam Jaiswal, Mr.
Nikunj Garg and Mr. Vishal Rao, Advs. versus BOSTON INSTITUTE OF ANALYTICS GLOBAL EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed three affidavit(s) of service.
2. The first affidavit of service dated 10.01.2025 reads as under:-
“1. I am the counsel for petitioner in the matter and have the knowledge of the proceedings emanating from the petition
2. I say that I have served the copy of the petition for appointment of arbitrator to the Respondent on the registered e-mail ID of the respondent on 09.01.2025 as available on the portal of MCA and also on the e-mail id available with the petitioner in their record which is as patilbandla.srinivas@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, ashwin@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org.psrinivas7@outlook.com.
3. The email sent to patilbandla.srinivas@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, ashwin@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, has bounced back and not delivered, however, the e-mail sent on psrinivas7@outlook.com has not bounced back. The copy of e-mail is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed A/1.
4. .I say that the above affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and record available.”
3. The second affidavit of service dated 24.03.2025 reads as under:-
“1. I am the counsel for petitioner in the matter and have the knowledge of the proceedings emanating from the petition.
2. I say that I have served the copy of the petition for appointment of arbitrator to the Respondent on the registered e-mail ID of the respondent on 23.03.2025 as available on the portal of MCA and also on the e-mail id available with the petitioner in their record which is as patilbandla.srinivas@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, ashwin@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, and psrinivas7@outlook.com, anuradha.sharma@bostoninsituteofanalytics.org.
3. The email sent to patilbandla.srinivas@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, and anuradha.sharma@bostoninsituteofanalytics.org has bounced back and not delivered, however, the e-mail sent on ashwin@bostoninstituteofanalytics.org, and psrinivas7@outlook.com has not bounced back. The copy of e-mail is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/1.
4. I say that the above affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and record available.”
4. The third affidavit dated 25.03.2025, reads as under:-
“1. I am working with the petitioner company in the matter and have the knowledge of the proceedings emanating from the petition.
2. I say that I have served the dasti notice upon the respondent on the following addresses as below on 12.03.2025, however, the representative of the respondent, after receiving the dasti notice, refused to acknowledge the receipt of same. The address is as below:
A. ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT BOSTON INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED AT: FLOOR-12, KANAKIA WALLSTREET, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400093 E-Mail:patilbandla.srinivas@bostoninstituteofanalytics,org: B. REGISTERED ADDRESS MENTIONED IN MCA DATA:
BOSTON INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Digitally Signed AT: B-1213, B-1214, B-1214A,WALL STREET AK ROAD, CHAKALA,ANDHERI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA – 400093 C. ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE REPLY (DOCUMENT-G)
FOR DASTI BOSTON INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED AT: 1214 B -1214A, KANAKIA WALL STREET, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAL, MAHARASHTRA, - 400093
3. I say that I tried to affix the dasti notice at the entrance of office of respondent but I was restrained from doing so by the employees of the respondent company. However, I duly informed the proceedings against them and also informed the next