[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anshul Chawla vs Taskus India Pvt. Ltd. on 8 January, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

1 AC-105-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
ARBITRATION CASE No. 105 of 2025
ANSHUL CHAWLA
Versus
TASKUS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Nishant Nigam - Advocate through video conferencing and Shri
Shravan Kumar Lahoti - Advocate for respondents.

WITH
ARBITRATION CASE No. 106 of 2025
BHAGAT SINGH BHATI
Versus
TASKUS INDIA PVT LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Nishant Nigam - Advocate through video conferencing and Shri
Shravan Kumar Lahoti - Advocate for respondents.
ARBITRATION CASE No. 107 of 2025
BHAVANA YADAV
Versus
TASKUS INDIA PVT. LTD AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for the applicant.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 1/9/2026
6:07:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

2 AC-105-2025
Shri Nishant Nigam - Advocate through video conferencing and Shri
Shravan Kumar Lahoti - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

All the above three applications have been filed for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996'). In view of the similarity of facts, all three of them are being decided by this common order.

ARBITRATION CASE No. 105 of 2025

2. The applicant in this case namely Anshul Chawla was employed as Human Resource Manager by respondent No.1 under an Employment

Agreement dated 13.06.2022. However an email was issued to him on 12.02.2025 whereby services of the applicant were initially suspended. Later on, the services of the applicant were terminated w.e.f. from 12.03.2025 pursuant to which a cease-and-desist notice was served upon him on 21.03.2025. The Employment Agreement of the applicant dated 13.06.2022 (Annexure A/1) contained a Dispute Resolution clause i.e. Clause No. 13. As such, the applicant invoked the said clause vide notice dated 28.07.2025 thereby invoking arbitration. The respondent No.1 vide its reply dated 29.08.2025 consented for invocation of arbitration pursuant to which the present application has been filed by the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.

ARBITRATION CASE No. 106 of 2025

3. The applicant in this case namely Bhagat Singh Bhati was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

3 AC-105-2025

appointed as Senior Manager (Human Resources) pursuant to Agreement of Employment dated 10.01.2023. However, on 10.02.2025 his services were terminated. As the Employment Agreement contained Dispute Resolution Clause No.13, as such the applicant invoked arbitration by sending notice dated 28.07.2025 thereby seeking appointment of Arbitrator. The respondent No.1 replied to the said notice on 29.08.2025 thereby accepting the invocation of arbitration. As such, this application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.

ARBITRATION CASE No. 107 of 2025

4. The applicant Bhavana Yadav was appointed on the post of Senior Director (Human Resources. She was later on promoted to the post of Vice President (Human Resources) in India and posted at Indore. An Employment Agreement was executed on 19.12.2022 in this behalf. However, on 10.02.2025, the services of applicant were terminated. As the Employment Agreement contained Dispute Resolution Clause No. 13, thus the applicant invoked arbitration vide notice date 28.07.2025 which was replied by the respondent No.1 on 29.08.2025 thereby accepting the invocation of arbitration. As such, this application has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although in Clause 13.1.1 of the Employment Agreement it has been mentioned that in case of any dispute with respect to the employee's employment or its terms, then the

same shall be submitted for resolution by a Sole Arbitrator appointed as per

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

4 AC-105-2025 the Rules of Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) however, in terms of Clause 13.1.2, the seat and venue of the arbitration has been fixed at Indore. He thus submits that there is an anomaly in the Dispute Resolution clause of the Employment Agreement and both cannot go together i.e. seat and venue of arbitration at Indore and application of MCIA rules cannot go together for the reason that the MCIA rules are applicable in Mumbai and the arbitration has to be held at Indore. Hence, he submits that it is not possible for the applicant to invoke arbitration at MCIA and for this reason, the Arbitrator has to be appointed by this Court in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1996.

6. As regards the presence of dispute, learned counsel for the applicant submits that infact the dispute is very much alive for the reason that after termination of the applicant Bhavana Yadav (AC No. 107/2025), she was able to secure employment elsewhere on 19.05.2025, however due to ill- information given by the respondent No.1 and its employees, she had to resign from her subsequent employment which has caused immense damage to the applicant. He further submits that in all three cases, the respondent No.1 has not followed the process for termination of services of the applicants. They have been terminated in a most arbitrary manner without assigning reasons for such termination. He also submits that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to any of them before their services were terminated. Thus, he submits that for this reason not only the dispute is present between the parties but it is also not possible to get the Arbitrator appointed through agreed procedure. Hence, he seeks for appointment of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

5 AC-105-2025 Arbitrator by this Court.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 at the outset submits that the applicants have unnecessarily made other respondents party as the agreement was executed between the applicants and respondent No.1 and other respondents have no role to play in the present matter.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that this application under Section 11 is not maintainable for the reason that the employment agreement in all three cases contain a Dispute Resolution Clause which provides that in case of dispute regarding terms of employment, the same has to be submitted for resolution to a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with Rules of MCIA. As such, the applicants are required to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration by filing appropriate application. He further submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that Clause 13.1.1 and 13.1.2 cannot go together as the MCIA operates in Mumbai and seat & venue of arbitration has been fixed at Indore, is based on a fallacy that for arbitration under the MCIA Rules, the seat must be at Mumbai. He refers to Rule 30 of the MCIA Rules and submits that seat of arbitration can be agreed upon by the parties and it is not essentially required that it should be at Mumbai only. The learned counsel further submits that in fact there is no failure on the part of the parties to adhere to the agreed procedure, as such the invocation of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is not only pre-mature but infact not permissible and for this proposition he places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

6 AC-105-2025 Union of India vs. Parmar Construction Company, (2019) 15 SCC 682. He further relies on orders passed by this Court in the case of Bansal and Company vs. Union of India & Ors., 2020 (4) MPLJ as also A.K.Shivhare Insfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC Online MP

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10. The employment agreements in all the three cases contain identical clause for Dispute Resolution i.e. Clause 13 which provides as under :

''13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

13.1 The Company and the Employee hereby agree that they will, at all times, act in good faith, and make all attempts to resolve all differences howsoever arising out of or in connection with this Agreement by discussion. If within fifteen (15) days of the commencement of the discussions the dispute is not resolved the dispute shall be referred to binding arbitration, provided that:

13.1.1. The Employee's employment with the Company shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India. Any dispute that may arise with respect to the Employee's employment or its terms shall be submitted for resolution by a sole arbitrator appointed as per the rules of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration ("MCIA"). The arbitration shall be governed by the MCIA Rules and the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").

13.1.2 There shall be a sole arbitrator appointed as per the rules of the MCIA. The award made by the sole arbitrator shall be binding on both Parties. The language of the arbitration shall be English.

The seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Indore. The Employee agrees to sign such further documents as required by the Company for the purposes of resolving any dispute by way of arbitration.

13.1.1 The Parties agree that until the arbitration proceedings are complete, they shall not take their disputes to a court of law.

13.2 The Employee hereby agrees to sign all further document and/or forms as may be required by the Company for or in relation to such arbitration. 13.3 Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions of this Agreement, in the event of any breach or apprehended breach by the Employee of the provisions of this Agreement, the Company shall be entitled, in addition to all other remedies, to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

7 AC-105-2025 an injunction, whether interlocutory or preliminary, restraining any such breach, without recourse to arbitration.''

11. From a bare reading of this clause, it is clear that it was agreed between the parties that in case of any dispute with respect to the employee's employment or its terms, the same shall be submitted for resolution to a Sole Arbitrator who has to be appointed as per the rules of MCIA. It has further been agreed in Clause 13.1.1 that the arbitration shall be governed by the MCIA Rules. The second part of the same is contained in Clause 13.1.2 which provides that the seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Indore.

12. It is thus clear that the agreement provides for rules which will govern the process of arbitration and also the seat / venue of arbitration. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in Indore the Rules of MCIA will not apply and it is not possible to fix venue at Indore while applying Rules of MCIA, appears to be fallacious in view of the fact that the rules of MCIA in itself provide in Rule No.30 that the parties may agree on the seat of arbitration and failing such agreement, the seat of arbitration shall be at Mumbai. It is thus clear that the MCIA Rules provide that seat of arbitration can be at any place as agreed by the parties and in case of failure of the parties to agree for a particular place, then it will be at Mumbai. As such, even in terms of Rules of MCIA it is not required that the arbitration must be held at Mumbai. As such, this contention of learned counsel for the applicant holds no water.

13. A bare perusal of the application filed by the applicant for appointment of Arbitrator would show that they invoked arbitration clause by sending notice to the respondent No.1 on 26.07.2025 and 28.07.2025,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

8 AC-105-2025 respectively. The respondent No.1 vide its reply dated 29.08.2025 in all three cases not only agreed for invocation of arbitration but specifically pointed out in paragraphs B and D of its reply that the Sole Arbitrator has to be appointed in accordance with the Rules of MCIA. It is thus clear that there is no denial or failure on the part of the respondent to invocation of arbitration clause.

14. A perusal of MCIA Rules would show that in terms of Rule 3 - Request for Arbitration can be made by filing a written request to the Registrar of MCIA. An elaborate procedure for consideration is provided in the said Rules and even after appointment of arbitrator in terms of Rule 10, challenge can be made against any arbitrator in terms of Rule 14 and Arbitrator can be replaced in terms of Rule 15. As such, there is an elaborate procedure for appointment of Arbitrator. The applicants, with open eyes, have agreed to follow the Rules of MCIA for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Clause 13.1.1 of the employment agreement. Thus, they cannot now turn back and seek appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1996 without first exhausting the process provided under the arbitration agreement. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parmar Construction (supra) has considered this aspect in para No. 38 to 47 and held in para No. 46 and 47 as under :

''46. Almost the same situation was examined by this Court in Union of India and Others vs. Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Ltd., 2015(2) SCC 52 and after placing reliance on North Eastern Railway and Others Vs. Tripple Engineering Works, (2014) 9 SCC 288 held that since Arbitral Tribunal has failed to perform and to conclude the proceedings, appointed an independent arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996. In the given circumstances, it was the duty of the High Court to first resort to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:579

9 AC-105-2025 mechanism in appointment of an arbitrator as per the terms of contract as agreed by the parties and the default procedure was opened to be resorted to if the arbitrator appointed in terms of the agreement failed to discharge its obligations or to arbitrate the dispute which was not the case set up by either of the parties.

47. To conclude, in our considered view, the High Court was not justified in appointing an independent arbitrator without resorting to the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator which has been prescribed under clause 64(3) of the contract under the inbuilt mechanism as agreed by the parties.''

15. Similar was the opinion of this Court in case of Bansal (supra) and A.K.Shivhare (supra).

16. In the present case, the pleadings in the application would show that after invocation of arbitration and its acceptance by the respondent No.1, no further steps have been taken by the applicants and straightaway these applications for appointment of Arbitrator have been filed which, in the considered view of this Court is not permissible. Applicants have to first exhaust the procedure as agreed upon in terms of Clause 13 of the Employment Agreement and only after that, if occasion so arise, they can approach the competent Court for redressal of their grievance.

17. In this view of the matter, all three applications are hereby dismissed with liberty to the applicants to approach the MCIA for appointment of Sole Arbitrator in terms of their Rules and the Employment Agreement.

Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected files.

(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

vidya