"1 2025:CGHC:59520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 31 of 2025 M/s Univabs Solutions Pvt Ltd Through Its Authorized Signatory Jayant Bhandari, S/o Late Mr. A.C. Bhandari, Aged About 59 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Suite No. 4 And 5, PnP Block, New Incubation Centre, Software Technology Parks of India , Junwani Road, Bhilai. C.G Bhilai, 490020 ... Applicant versus Mr. Ashish Kumar Sahu S/o Jagweshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 41, Milan Chowk, Subhash Nagar, District Durg (C.G) 491- 001 ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act of 1996”) for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to constitute an arbitral tribunal comprising with a sole Arbitrator amongst the Hon'ble Retired Judges from the High Court of Chhattisgarh or as this Hon'ble Court may fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such other orders in favor of the applicant including cost of the application”. 3. The fact, in brief, as projected by the applicant is that the applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is inter-alia engaged in Printed from counselvise.com PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.10 11:44:39 +0530 2 the business of providing the services of Indian certified radiologist to pre-read radiology interpretation and provide medical assistance, support services for preparing radiology reports in a manner as required by its customers. The respondent, was appointed by the applicant on 01.12.2022 for the post of Junior Quantity Estimator for a period of 18 months and which has been subsequently extended by and between the parties mutually till 19.03.2025. The Appointment Letter includes detailed terms and conditions of employment, encompassing the salary, applicable allowances, and other benefits extended to the Employee. Furthermore, the Appointment Letter outlines the Employee's working schedule, training requirements, and duties and responsibilities associated with the position. Clause 7(c) outlined the conflict-of-interest policy requiring the employee not to solicit, induce or encourage any employee, customer, or vendor of the applicant company to terminate or alter their relationship with the company. Clause 8, the confidentiality clause, prohibited the disclosure of confidential information during and up to one year after the cessation of employment. In addition to the appointment letter, the parties entered into an employment agreement dated 01.12.2022 Clause 6(a) of the agreement restricted from engaging in similar or competing business with the company's customers or clients for a specified period. The respondent herein was employed with the applicant company until 19.03.2025 especially for the work of Quantity estimation, wherein the respondent served as Quantity Estimator discharging functions on behalf of the applicant company and receiving a regular salary in accordance with the terms of the employment agreement. The respondent resigned via email dated 19.03.2025, without citing any reason for his termination of employment. It is submitted that the respondent had been duly trained for the assigned role, during which various trade secrets and proprietary information of the Applicant were disclosed The said training and Printed from counselvise.com 3 responsibilities involved the dissemination of confidential and exclusive information, as well as the development of specific skills intended for the Applicant's work. The respondent has willfully and deliberately breached the terms of the agreement, specifically Clause 3.3 thereof. Clause 6 of the said agreement expressly stipulates that, upon termination of employment, the employee shall not engage, directly or indirectly, with any competitor firm or be employed in any business of a similar nature for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of such termination. Contrary to the said covenant, the Respondent, in blatant disregard of the aforesaid contractual obligations, has associated with M/s P2C Construction Services, a direct competitor of the applicant. Such conduct amounts to a wilful violation of the restrictive covenants agreed upon and renders the respondent liable to bear the costs and consequences stipulated under Clause 3.3 of the agreement. The applicant issued a legal notice to respondent on 29.04 2025, bringing to their attention the alleged breaches of Agreement. In response, respondent furnished a reply dated 15.05.25 wherein the allegations set forth in the notice were denied. However, the said reply failed to sufficiently address or refute the issue of the respondent's engagement with M/s P2C Construction Services, a direct competitor of the applicant. The respondent was imparted exclusive training and was entrusted with confidential and proprietary business information. Such information is protected under the confidentiality clause of the Agreement and is not to be disclosed or exploited, whether for personal gain or to confer an unfair advantage upon a competing entity. The respondent, by disclosing confidential information, has breached the fundamental terms of the agreement between the parties, resulting in substantial losses for applicant, which have amounted to Rs. 7,00,000/-. The respondent are liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per clause 3.3 of the agreement the respondent is liable to for the liquidated damage, Printed from counselvise.com 4 training cost and lost productivity due to the breach committed by the respondent. 4. Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the respondent acknowledged receipt of the legal notice issued by the applicant, their response dated 15.05.25 categorically denied the allegation set forth in the notice. However, the respondents' reply failed to adequately address the crucial issue which remains a key point of contention in the dispute. Consequently, in absence of a satisfactory resolution, the applicant has been compelled to invoke the Arbitration Clause as stipulated in the agreement between the parties. However, despite the passage of more than 15 days from the receipt of notice, the respondent have failed to take any action to either settle the outstanding payment or agree to the nomination of the arbitrator, as required by the notice. 5. As a result, the applicant has been left with no choice but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The applicant has already nominated Hon'ble Justice (Retired) Shri G Minhajuddin as the arbitrator to resolve the dispute as outlined in the notice dated 29.04.2025. The dispute is clear, the respondent has joined another company which is an in direct competing business and thereby breached the contract. Thus, although dispute has arisen between the parties and since the respondent are not responding to the fervent request and nomination made by the applicant thus being left with no other option the applicant files the instant application. 6. Considering the ongoing violation committed by the respondent, dispute has arisen between the parties as per clause 8 of the agreement dated 01.12.2022 and there exist an Arbitration clause under the agreement entered between the parties and the same is reproduced herein below for immediate perusal of this Hon'ble Court:- Printed from counselvise.com 5 “That the parties hereto further agree that any dispute, difference or claim whatsoever, arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this Agreement or the validity or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration held by the sole arbitrator appointed by the Company and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. The seat of arbitration shall be at Bhilai or Durg, District - Durg. (Chhattisgarh).” 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if any retired Judge of District Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Mr. N.D. Tigala, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as Arbitrator. 9. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. N.D.Tigala, a retired Judge of District Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 10. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. N.D.Tigala in the proper address. 11. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 12. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti Printed from counselvise.com "