Nisha Ajay Agrawal vs Big V Telecom Private Limited
2025 Latest Caselaw 4071 Bom

Bombay High Court

Nisha Ajay Agrawal vs Big V Telecom Private Limited on 19 June, 2025

2025:BHC-OS:9489                                                                903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx



              Digitally
              signed by
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              PURTI
       PURTI  PRASAD
       PRASAD PARAB
       PARAB Date:
              2025.06.26
              15:58:22
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
              +0530




                               COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2025

                           Nisha Ajay Agrawl
                           R/at : Flat No. 1401, Plot No. 579,
                           Praman Splendour, Jame Jamshed Road,
                           Matunga (E), Mumbai - 400 019.                               ...Applicant
                                   Versus
                           Big V Telecom Private Limited
                           A Company registered under the
                           Companies Act, 1956
                           having its registered office at
                           Plot No.62, K.B. Chambers, First Floor,
                           Canal Road, Gokulpeth,
                           Nagpur - 440 010.                                            ...Respondent

               Mr. Avinash Joshi for the Applicant. .
               Mr. Sumit Khanna a/w Mr. Anshuman Sambre i/b Mr. Onkar Wable for
               Respondent.


                                    CORAM            : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
                                    DATE             : JUNE 19, 2025

               ORAL JUDGMENT :

Context and Background:

1. This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( "the Act"), seeking reference of

disputes and differences between the parties pursuant to a Service Level

Agreement dated February 2, 2021 ("SLA") which purportedly contains an

arbitration clause in Clause 3 (found at Page No.34 of the Application). The

said provisions reads thus :

June 19, 2025

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

"This agreement shall always be subject to the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Courts and arbitration situated at

Mumbai".

[Emphasis Supplied]

2. That such a clause would be controversial in nature for

construing a binding commitment to arbitrate is writ large on the face of the

clause. However, the matter does not rest there. On September 22, 2021,

making a reference to this very same SLA the Applicant wrote to the

Respondent stating, in fact, confirming, that the the parties had not

provided for any arbitration clause although two clauses in the SLA referred

to "arbitration", and consequently, the Respondent was requested to

consent to incorporate an explicit arbitration clause in the following terms :

"All disputes/differences relating to and/ or arising out of

this Agreement and/or anything done in pursuance thereof

shall be referred to a Sole arbitrator to be appointed by

consonance of both the parties. The place of arbitration

shall be at Mumbai and the arbitration proceedings shall

be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (amended from

time to time) and the decision of the sole arbitrator shall

be binding on the Parties."

[Emphasis Supplied]

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

3. In response to the said letter from the Applicant, by a letter dated

September 24, 2021, the Respondent stated that the Respondent was in

receipt of the aforesaid letter and was agreeable to the arbitration clause

mentioned in the said letter as if it is a part of the SLA.

4. Consequently, I have no doubt in my mind that while the original

version of the arbitration clause did not really emphatically indicate a

commitment to proceed to arbitration, the aforesaid exchange of

correspondence between September 22, 2021 and September 24, 2021

evidently led to the parties executing and confirming an arbitration

agreement.

5. A bare reading of the Section 7 of the Act would show that one of

the means of executing an arbitration agreement would be exchange of

correspondence and therefore, the formal existence of an arbitration

agreement is writ large on the face of the record.

Respondent's Objections:

6. However, Learned Counsel for the Respondent would object to

there being a discernible arbitration agreement in existence. He would

point to Exhibit "D" (Page No.38 of the Application), to state that it was the

receipt of a letter from the Applicant indicating the suggestion of who

should be appointed as a sole arbitrator that was being consented to. That

such an exchange would not constitute an arbitration agreement, he would

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

submit, has already been held by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in an

identically drafted agreement between the spouse of the Applicant and the

same Respondent, as not constituting an arbitration agreement. It is

submitted by the Respondent that there was another letter dated September

20, 2021 (i.e. prior to the exchange of correspondence by which the

elaborate arbitration clause was confirmed) by which arbitration had

already been invoked.

7. Consequently, he would submit that arbitration was invoked at a

time when the proposed new arbitration agreement did not exist and only

the clause in the SLA was in existence. That clause has already been held as

not constituting an arbitration agreement, he would submit, rendering this

Application meaningless and deserving of dismissal.

8. The view taken by the Learned Single Judge of this Court was

subjected to a Review Petition, which was dismissed, and a Special Leave

Petition seeking to challenge the said order is pending in the Supreme

Court, which issued notice.

Analysis and Findings:

9. I have considered the contentions made on behalf of the

Respondent. Even if one were to accept his submission for the sake of

argument that the Applicant indeed wrote on September 20, 2021

proposing a name of an arbitrator, thereby invoking the purported

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

arbitration clause which has now been held by another Learned Single

Judge of this Court as not constituting an arbitration clause, the needle

would not turn in the Respondent's favour.

10. It cannot be forgotten that exactly two days after the invocation

of arbitration, a detailed arbitration clause was set out in the letter dated

September 22, 2021 as an offer by the Applicant to the Respondent.

Acceptance of this offer was sent in writing by the Respondent by a letter

dated September 24, 2021 stating that the arbitration clause mentioned in

that letter in specific reference to the letter dated September 22, 2021 was

being accepted as if it was part and parcel of the SLA. As stated earlier, in

my view, this concluded the parties arriving at a binding arbitration

agreement by exchange of correspondence.

11. Even assuming that the clause in the originally executed SLA did

not constitute an arbitration clause at the time the letter invoking

arbitration was issued (September 20, 2021), the exchange of

correspondence between September 22, 2021 and September 24, 2021,

unequivocally constitutes the existence of an arbitration agreement. Parties

who do not have any arbitration agreement and are involved in court

proceedings, too can execute a new arbitration agreement and proceed to

arbitrate. In this case, contemporaneous to the events that developed, the

parties actually exchanged correspondence to confirm that they would

adopt the arbitration clause proposed on September 22, 2021.

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

12. Under Section 11(6A) of the Act, this Court can only look to the

formally executed arbitration agreement being in existence. The scope of

jurisdiction is confined to such examination of existence of an arbitration

agreement. Having examined the material on record, I am satisfied that an

arbitration agreement is in existence.

13. Now, one must turn to the precedent being cited in the form of a

ruling in another proceedings between the spouse of the Applicant and the

same Respondent.

14. A compilation of documents relied upon by the Applicant is

marked "X" for identification and is taken on record. Essentially this

compilation is to bring on record the developments in the other proceedings

pursuant to which the Respondent contends the same clause and the same

correspondence has been held as not constituting an arbitration agreement.

15. Having examined the record, I cannot agree with the

Respondent. It is also seen from the decision of the Learned Single Judge

of this Court dated March 3, 2023, and the decision dated August 14, 2024

in the Review Petition that there is no reference to exchange of the specific

letters dated September 22, 2021 and September 24, 2021 that I have

interpreted above.

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

16. The Learned Single Judge had been presented with another

letter, also dated September 24, 2021, but responding to the earlier

invocation letter dated September 20, 2021. The specific exchange of

letters referred to above was not part of the record reviewed by the Learned

Single Judge.

17. It is stated across the bar that letter (dated September 22, 2021)

now annexed at Exhibit "C" to this Application, was sought to be introduced

in the Review Petition, but the Court was not convinced that the view taken

by the Court warranted a change.

18. When one reviews the first decision dated March 3, 2023 by the

Learned Single Judge, there is no reference whatsoever to the letter dated

September 22, 2021 containing the detailed arbitration clause that came to

be accepted by the Respondent's letter dated September 24, 2021. I have no

doubt that if these two letters had been placed before the Learned Single

Judge of this Court, the view would have been different. Since these two

letters were not placed before the Learned Single Judge, and the first order

dated March 3, 2023 was passed, that decision would not be a precedent for

the analysis contained in this order. Although it is stated that the Review

Petition sought to draw the attention of the Learned Single Judge to the

aforesaid two letters, it is seen from the order dated August 14, 2024 that

the letter dated September 22, 2021 was still nowhere considered.

Therefore, I am not certain that the decision not to review creates any

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

precedent in the matter. In any case, I am informed that, the decisions of

the Learned Single Judge have been carried to the Supreme Court and

notice has been issued in the matter and the civil appeal is pending in the

Supreme Court.

19. Consequently, regardless of the invocation being effected on

September 20, 2021, by which time the clause that has been held as not

being an arbitration agreement alone was in place, it is clear that two days

later, a conventional arbitration clause was proposed and two days after

that, it was accepted. This is nowhere analysed in the two decisions of the

Learned Single Judge pressed into service. Those rulings would hold good

for interpreting only the clause in the SLA that purported to be an

arbitration clause. However, the lacuna in that clause was noticed and the

parties replaced it with an exchange of correspondence.

20. Based on this replaced arbitration clause, an invocation notice

dated September 4, 2024 is seen on the record. The reply to this invocation

notice from the Respondent is essentially that the matter had already been

adjudicated by the Learned Single Judge and has been set at rest. I am not

satisfied that such an objection, which is now reiterated in arguments made

today, is worthy of acceptance for the reasons already articulated above.

21. As a last roll of the dice, Learned Counsel for the Respondent

makes a unique submission. He would contend that the reference to

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

"consent" in the letter dated September 24, 2021 from the Respondent

accepting the arbitration clause proposed by the Applicant by his letter

dated September 22, 2021 uses the phrase "equivocal consent". The upshot

of this argument is that the consent no consent at all since it was equivocal

and not unequivocal.

22. To my mind, this is evidently a typographical mistake by persons

engaged in commercial correspondence. Even in legal drafting, normal

mistakes are made by not using the word "not" when the context indicates

the diametrically opposite thinking. In any case, ours is a society that

functions in English despite English not being the mother-tongue. One

cannot place any value to the usage of the phrase "equivocal consent" when

consenting to the arbitration clause proposed in the letter dated September

22, 2021. That apart, an overall reading of the letter dated September 24,

2021, leaves no scope at all for any other meaning of what was being

consented to and how it was consented to.

23. For the reasons set out above, being satisfied about the existence

of the arbitration agreement, this Application is finally disposed of in the

following terms :

A] Justice (Retired) Shri. Anil Menon, a Former Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties covered by this Application;

Address : Office 4 & 5, Yashwant Chambers, 3rd Floor, 18/B, Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 23.

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

B] A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocate for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded on the website of this Court. The Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

C] The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocate for the Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocate for the Applicant to the Respondent;

D] The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

E] All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab

903-CARAP-186-2025 copy.docx

24. Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression

of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties.

All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the

arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

25. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be

taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's

website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

June 19, 2025 Purti Parab