Merino Industries Limited vs Shri Mayank Bansal
2022 Latest Caselaw 386 Del

$~12
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                              Date of decision: 07.02.2022
+      ARB.P. 61/2022
       MERINO INDUSTRIES LIMITED                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through       Mr.Gunjan Kumar, Adv.

                          versus

       SHRI MAYANK BANSAL                                ..... Respondent
                    Through             Mr. Rohin Dubey and Mr.Sagar
                                        Chawla, Advs.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11(6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes inter-se the parties.

2. Petitioner is in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling

of Laminates, LPL Board, HPL Board, Rest-room cubicles and other

interiors solutions and provides a wide array of products for homes, offices,

commercial and public areas.

3. Pertinently, respondent applied and was granted the post of Senior

Manager, Marketing in the field of laminate panel industries on 12.10.2018

and an "Agreement of Confidentiality and Not transferring knowledge and

Skill" was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 12.12.2018

wherein respondent shall not directly or indirectly associate with any

competing laminate, panel or panel related products for one year after his

separation from the company. However, in March, 2021, respondent

apprised to petitioner that he got a better offer from one M/s. Kandla Agro

and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as a Chief Product Manager.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as M/s.Kandla Agro

and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is not involved in any way in the business of

products of petitioner, petitioner relieved the respondent. However,

petitioner was shocked to receive an email for verification of the respondent

that he has taken the employment with M/s. Greenlam Industries Ltd. which

company is direct competitor of petitioner. Petitioner enquired about the

same and got to know the abovesaid statement for respondent is true as M/s.

Greenlam Industries Ltd. has deposited EPF contribution in respondent's

account.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner issued a legal notice

to the respondent on 03.08.2021 as well as on 12.8.2021 asking him to leave

the services of the petitioner's competitor, failing which legal steps shall be

taken against him as there is a breach of terms regarding employment on

respondent's behalf and what he did was contrary to the terms of

employment as agreed between the parties.

6. Thereafter, petitioner sent a legal notice dated 20.10.2021 under

Article 14 of the Agreement of Confidentiality and not transferring

knowledge and Skill dated 12.12.2018 invoked the arbitration and

nominated Mr.L.D. Mual, learned Additional District Judge, (Retd.) to be an

arbitrator, however, in response thereto, respondent refused to accept the

name suggested by the petitioner and instead proposed the name of

Ms.Anindita Mitra as sole arbitrator which was also refused by petitioner.

Hence, the present petition has been filed.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent has not opposed the present petition and submits that the claims

raised in the present petition are disputed, however, fairly conceded that the

disputes inter se parties are arbitrable. Learned counsel also submitted that

respondent has no objection if disputes are referred to an independent

arbitrator appointed by this Court.

8. Since counsel representing both the sides have consented that the

disputes are arbitrable and an independent Arbitrator be appointed by this

Court, the present petition is allowed.

9. Accordingly, Mr. O.P. Saini, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 971796857) is

appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

10. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

11. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

12. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly

disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 07, 2022/ab