12 arp 69-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 69 OF 2022

Mrs. Santosh Kumari Garg and Anr.

..Petitioners

V/s.

M/s. C.L. Educate Limited and Ors.

..Respondents

----

Mr. Vagish Mishra a/w Varad Dubey i/b Law Counsellors for the

Petitioners.

Mr. Harsh Moorjani i/b Joshua Abhay Patnigere for the

Respondents.

----

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

P.C.

.

This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.

The first Respondent is a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act and is running educational centers/coaching

classes across the country. The second Respondent is the

authorised signatory/representative, of the first Respondent. The

first Respondent had obtained premises for conducting the

coaching classes belonging to the Petitioners situated at 110 at

Kamdhenu Commerz, Plot No.2, Sector No. 14, Kharghar, Navi

Mumbai on a leave and licence basis as per agreement dated

01.09.2019.

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 4

SNEHA

NITIN

CHAVAN

Digitally signed by

SNEHA NITIN

CHAVAN

Date: 2022.09.26

18:11:56 +0530

12 arp 69-22.doc

2.

As disputes and differences have arisen between the parties

out of said leave and licence agreement, the Petitioner by issuing

a notice dated 04.10.2021 had invoked the arbitration clause as

contained in clause Nos. 42 & 43 of the agreement. As the

Respondents have failed to join the Petitioner in appointment of

the Arbitrator, the present petition is filed.

3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only

contention raised on behalf of the Respondents is that

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not the signatory to the leave and

licence agreement which is signed by Respondent No.2 Mr.

Vivek Sinha as the authorised representative of the first

Respondent. Secondly, it is submitted that the dispute having

arisen out of a leave and licence agreement is not arbitrable.

4.

I have considered the submissions made. It can be seen

that first Respondent, which is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act is a party to the leave and licence agreement,

which is signed by the second Respondent as its authorised

representative. The company is a juristic person and therefore, it

is represented by Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

are respectively the Vice Chairman and Managing Director and

Executive Director of the Respondent No.1

Sneha Chavan page 2 of 4

12 arp 69-22.doc

5.

Insofar as the other ground about the arbitability of the

dispute is concerned, in my considered view, it is for the learned

Arbitrator to decide the issue in the arbitration proceedings.

6.

In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:

ORDER

(i)

Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhatt, is appointed as a Sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the

parties.

(ii)

The learned Sole Arbitrator, before entering

the arbitration reference, shall forward a statement

of disclosure as per requirement of Section 11(8)

read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, to the Registrar ( Judicial-I)

of this Court.

(iii)

At the first instance, the parties shall appear

before the prospective Arbitrator within a period of

two weeks from today, on a date which may be

mutually fixed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

(iv)

The fees payable to the Arbitral Tribunal

shall be as prescribed under the Bombay High

Court (Fees payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 and

shall be borne by the parties in equal proportion.

(v)

All contentions of the parties including on

merits of the matter are expressly kept open.

Sneha Chavan