The court upholds the validity of arbitration agreements under statutory provisions, enabling adjudication of disputes when one party does not appear.

O R D E R

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2025 This Arbitration Request is filed by the petitioner seeking to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes between the petitioner and the respondent.

2. Petitioner had entered into an agreement/

Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure A1) with the respondent, which is an incorporated entity engaged in creating various educational/development videos for talent development. By Annexure A1 agreement, the respondent had after receiving a consideration of Rs.3 lakhs, granted to the petitioner, the franchise for their software by name ‘Prana Insight’, which is an educational app. As per the said franchise, the petitioner was entitled to sell the said product by giving an activation code after collecting the prescribed fee. Annexure A1 agreement contained an arbitration clause (clause 14), which reads as follows:

“14. If at any time any dispute arose, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of two persons (one named by each party) or their umpire in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act for the time being in force”

3. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties under Annexure A1 Memorandum of Understanding. Petitioner alleged breach on the part of the respondent in the performance of the terms of Annexure A1. Petitioner thus raised a dispute and invoked the arbitration clause. Annexure A2 notice was issued to the respondent calling upon them to appoint an Arbitrator. The said notice, though was received by the respondent, no steps towards arbitration were initiated. This Arbitration Request has hence been filed by the petitioner invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 4. Notice was issued and duly served on the respondent.

5. Heard Sri.C.K.Sreejith, Advocate appearing for the petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondent in spite of service of notice. Since the notice issued from the Registry of this Court has been served on the respondent and acknowledgment thereof duly received, non appearance of the respondent cannot be a reason to deny relief to the petitioner.

6. Clause 14 of Annexure A1 Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the respondent specifically stipulates dispute resolution by arbitration. Annexure A2 lawyer notice reveals the existence of disputes between the parties and invocation of the relevant arbitration clause by due issuance of a notice.

7. The essential elements to constitute an arbitration agreement viz., (1) The presence of a present or a future difference in connection with some contemplated affair. (2) Intention of the parties to settle such differences by a private Tribunal. (3) Agreement in writing to be bound by the decision of such Tribunal, and (4) the parties being in ad idem regarding same, are found satisfied. [SeeBabanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers and another (2022) 9 SCC 691 ]. It is trite that the Arbitrator can decide on questions regarding jurisdiction/arbitrability/

maintainability and limitation, if any, in the arbitration proceedings.

8. In view of the above, taking note of the fact that the amount involved is only Rs.3 lakhs and the fact that the respondent has not chosen to appear in spite of receipt of notice, I deem it fit, proper and just to allow the Arbitration Request and to appoint a lawyer from the panel of Arbitrators maintained by this Court as the sole Arbitrator.

Accordingly, this Arbitration Request stands allowed and it is ordered as follows :

(i) Sri.Pious Mathew, Advocate, Ollur P.O., Thrissur- 680306, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent under Annexure A1 agreement/Memorandum of Understanding mentioned above.

(ii) The