Delhi District Court
M/S University Living Accomodation Pvt ... vs Jasmine Setia on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-01),
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023
M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office at
R-6, Kasturba Niketan Complex,
Lajpat Nagar - 2,
New Delhi- 110024.
............Petitioner
Versus
Jasmine Setia
Flat No. 425, 2nd Floor, Shakti Khand 3,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh 201014. .........Respondent
Date of institution : 10.05.2023
Date of reserving order : 12.07.2025
Date of order : 31.07.2025
ORDER:
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking urgent interim relief in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for acting against the terms of the letter of appointment dated 22.11.2021 and non- disclosure & non-compete agreement dated 14.06.2022 respectively, with following prayers:
i). To grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner, restraining the respondent from contacting/poaching any of the existing clients of the petitioner till the disputes between OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 1 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:37:16
+0530
the parties stands resolved by way of Arbitration, if required.
ii). To restrain the respondent from working in the similar competitive business as of the petitioner till the disputes between the parties stands resolved by way of Arbitration, if required.
iii). To restrain the respondent from using the assets, trade channels, name, intangibles, confidential information, business information gathered/shared in any form including client & customer database, client networks, partner data, etc. of the petitioner obtained by her while working with the petitioner company.
iv). Order the respondent to pay Damages to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Only) to the petitioner company for her acts which have significantly hurt the petitioner financially.
v). To direct the respondent to disclose immediately any other client/company/firm/student/individual/or any other, which is the client of the petitioner and has been contacted by the respondent; to stop all such activities immediately.
vi). Any other Order(s), Direction(s) that this Learned Court may deem fit and proper in light of Equity and Natural Justice.
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 2013. It is a diversified company established in the year 2016 and is in the OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 2 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:37:30
+0530
business of providing accommodation services to student across the world. It helps students across the globe find suitable and secure accommodation near their university campuses. The petitioner has a 230 member strong team which is constantly reinventing the services to better the user experience and digitally transform the overseas education journey and enjoys a goodwill in the market regarding its quality services. It is averred that the respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and was appointed at the position of "Associate Business Development" vide Appointment Letter dated 22.11.2021 and is presently working with the Company named "UniAcco" at the post of Manager - Global Partnerships and Strategic Alliances. It is stated that the UniAcco is a direct competitor of the petitioner and deals in similar nature of business targeting same/similar audience of students and clients for the business.
3. As per the petitioner, on 22.11.2021 the respondent was appointed on the position "Associate - Business Development" by the petitioner vide Letter of Appointment dated 22.11.2021 wherein the respondent was trusted with handling clients and business associations along with matters engaged in managing the assigned operations and businesses of the petitioner Company for which the respondent was given access to the highly sensitive and confidential information pertaining to student database, client database, trade secrets, customers and business partnerships signed globally. The respondent was entrusted with confidential data about the affairs at the petitioner Company. It is stated that in terms of the contract, the respondent OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 3 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:37:37 +0530 joined the petitioner and started working on the projects assigned. It is submitted that between November, 2021 to November, 2022, the respondent was entrusted with various confidential information and the information related to trade secrets, present businesses and proposed businesses, ideas, strategies, present or proposed clients & customers, business and marketing plans, price and commission lists, quotes, existing or prospective agents, suppliers and etc., wherein the respondent had satisfactorily carried out the business operation works and other works as assigned timely, without any complaint from the petitioner until November 2022. The petitioner company in June, 2022 decided to get Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete signed by all the employees at the Company in order to prevent any potential data theft, loss of business and resources, client and customer databases, etc. The respondent duly executed the Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement dated 14.06.2022 with the petitioner Company. It is further averred that the petitioner company, through mutual dialogue explained the respondent that according to the policy of the petitioner Company, the appraisal and revision of salaries were not currently underway, and as such, any adjustments to the respondent's salary could not be made during this period. The respondent duly accepted to continue working with the petitioner company. However, the problems started arising between the parties in December 2022, when the respondent started defaulting and delaying in her work performance and handling of assigned works. As per the petitioner, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner company, the respondent vide email dated OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 4 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:37:44 +0530 05.12.2022, issued a Notice of Resignation in terms of the clause 8.1 of the Letter of Appointment. The respondent stated her willingness to quit based on personal reasons and health issues and owing to which the respondent will not be able to continue working with the company.
As per clause 8.1 of the subject contract regarding notice period, the respondent further started serving her 1-month notice period starting from 05.12.2022 and ending on 31.12.2022. Meanwhile, it was known to the petitioner via networking platform LinkedIn that the respondent had joined a company named 'UniAcco' which is in direct competition with the petitioner, on the position of Manager - Global Partnerships and Strategic Alliances. It is contended by the petitioner that this act of the respondent in joining a company of direct competition is violative of the Non-Disclosure & Non-Compete Agreement dated 14.06.2022. As per clause 7.1 of the subject contract, the respondent is barred both directly or indirectly, to carry on any business, trade, profession or other activity in competition with the Company or similar to the business of the company, either as a proprietor, consultant, employee, manager, shareholder or in any other capacity.
4. It is also stated that the petitioner received a screenshot of an email from its client, wherein the respondent and her new employer (UniAcco) have been in touch with one of their clients (Fateh Education) and has blatantly tried to poach the client by offering higher commissions, thereby the respondent is in grave violation of the terms of the Non-Confidentiality Clause of the Agreement and due to that the petitioner company's business with the said client (Fateh OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 5 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:37:49
+0530
Education) has suffered enormously, both financially as well as mentally, alongside a dent on the goodwill it has attained over the years of committed hard work in the field. In view of the aforesaid events, petitioner through its Human Resource (HR) Mr. Anupam Jauhari, tried to contact the respondent through email dated 13.02.2023 but the respondent failed in providing any justifiable response. The petitioner alleged that the new employer of the respondent is in the same business as of the petitioner and is a direct and a strong competitor in the market. The petitioner also alleged that due to such activities, the respondent has caused and are continuing to cause tremendous agony, losses to the business of the petitioner. It is, therefore, a clear case of siphoning/poaching of clients and earning profits by diversion of petitioner's business permanently. When the petitioner did not receive any justifiable response from the respondent in respect to the said unfair, unethical and malafide business practices, the petitioner issued a Legal Notice dated 07.03.2023 to the respondent informing the respondent about the blatant violations and breach of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Appointment and Non-Disclosure & Non-Compete Agreement respectively. The respondent in her reply to legal notice dated 20.03.2023 stated that the said resignation has been as per the provisions of the Appointment Letter and she has handed over all the assets and data to the Company and after getting the clearance from the petitioner Company, she was relieved on 30.12.2023. However, despite the said clarifications it is apprehended and analyzed that the respondent through her acts of OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 6 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:37:54
+0530
poaching of their clients has engaged into clear breach of the confidentiality clause of the Agreement signed between the parties. Petitioner also submitted that as per clause XII of the non-disclosure and non-compete agreement dated 14.06.2022, the agreed mode of resolution of dispute is Arbitration. It is also stated that since the efforts to resolve the disputes amicably have failed as also the respondent is indulging in activities that are prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and its business, therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative but to invoke the Arbitration Clause. However, since the Arbitrator has no power to pass any interim protection, the Petitioner is constrained to file the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief in light of the gross violations and breach committed by the respondent.
5. Respondent has filed reply to the above petition, wherein it is stated that the respondent was appointed as Associate-Business Development vide Letter of Appointment dated 22.11.2021 in the petitioner company. The respondent on 14.10.2022 had resigned from the service of the petitioner company as she was offered a job with APEEJAY Education Society. It is contended that Mr. Saurabh Arora, CEO of the petitioner company and Mr. Anupam Jauhari, working in the Human Resource Department of the petitioner Company promised to match the employment offer, which was offered to the respondent, and persuaded the respondent in withdrawing her resignation letter which is clear from the Email Correspondences Dated 14.10.2022 to 21.10.2023. It is contended that the petitioner company was never true OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 7 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:37:58 +0530 to its words and did not match the offer of employment which APEEJAY Education Society gave to the respondent vide their letter dated 27.08.2022, even though the respondent kept asking for the same and lost a valuable job opportunity. These acts of the petitioner company not only harassed the respondent but she was also misled and misguided by the petitioner company as she was promised that higher salary and perks will be given to her if she withdraws the resignation letter dated 14.10.2022 and when the respondent agreed to their proposal neither the salary was increased and nor the promised perks were given to her as a result of which the respondent faced health issues. It is contended that the respondent had resigned from the petitioner company due to some personal reasons and health issues which were created due to the constant harassment and exploitation meted out to her by the senior staff of petitioner company namely Mr. Saurabh Arora, CEO of the petitioner company and Mr. Anupam Jauhari, working in the Human Resource Department of the petitioner Company with effect from 05.12.2022. Respondent tendered her resignation vide her E-mail dated 05.12.2022, which was accepted vide petitioner Company's email dated 19.12.2022 and the respondent was informed that her last working day will be 31.12.2022 and thereafter, her full and final settled will be credited within 45 days of the last working day. The petitioner company never sought or asked for compliance of clause 8.1 and clause 4.5 of the appointment letter dated 22.11.2021 from the respondent as her resignation was accepted without any grievances and objections by the petitioner company.OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 8 of 18
M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:03
+0530
6. Respondent also contended that all the service agreements came to an end after the petitioner had accepted resignation of the respondent vide email dated 19.12.2022 therefore, no agreements (i.e. Non-Disclosure or Non-Compete Agreements) bind the respondent as the same are violative of various provisions of Indian Contract Act, Constitution of India and the law laid down on the subject matter by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
It is further contended that after serving the notice period and terminating her services, the respondent has never been in touch with any existing client of the petitioner company nor has she tried to poach any client of petitioner company by offering higher commissions. The respondent not committed violation of any agreement much less non-confidential clause of the agreement as wrongly claimed by the petitioner company. It is denied that the respondent has committed or indulged in any fraudulent activity or has caused any loss, damages, agony to the petitioner company and on the contrary she has suffered at the hands of the petitioner company as neither she could join offer of Apeejay Education Society nor her full and final settlement has been released to her. The respondent contended that the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable as there exists no cause of action in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent and the issue involved in the present petition have come to an end after the acceptance of respondent's resignation by the petitioner company on 19.12.2022. The present petition is barred by law as the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 9 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:08
+0530
not arbitration proceedings as there is no legal and valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The petitioner herein has no locus standi to prefer the present petition as the petitioner has no right, title or interest on the career and subsequent employment of the respondent and therefore the present proceedings are an abuse of process of law. It is contended that the claim of damages made by the petitioner in the present petition is absolutely misconceived, wrong and not maintainable.
7. It is also contended that the non-compete clause used in agreements can be categorized into two categories i.e. contract term and post-term covenants. The distinction between restraint imposed by a contract operative during the subsistence of the contract and those operative after the term of the contract is of fundamental character. It is contended that the present petition filed by the petitioner company deserves to be dismissed as the same relates to Post Employment Restrictive Covenants. Reply on merits also, the respondent denied the contentions of the petitioner. Respondent prayed that the present petition be dismissed with cost.
8. Arguments heard.
9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent cannot disclose the trade secrets of the petitioner. He argued that the respondent is soliciting the previous clients of the petitioner. He also argued that the job offer respondent wanted to match was accepted by the petitioner. Further, the respondent had also pressured the petitioner that the respondent be promoted, however, the OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 10 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:38:13 +0530 same was denied since the petitioner did not find it fit and the petitioner only accepted to raise her salary and despite of said fact, the respondent had mentioned in her resignation that she was resigning due to some personal reasons and health issues and no where she had mentioned that she was resigning to join another employment or that she had an offer. He also argued that the petitioner has sought protection of its proprietary and confidential information, trade secrets, IPR and protecting its business associations, vendors and agents, which have been a result of a decade of hard work and commitment. He argued that no client or vendor or agent of the petitioner can be claimed by the respondent just because she handled them while working in the company. He submitted that the respondent be restrained from using any such acquired knowledge and poaching/contact such vendors, businesses, agents, which she handled while working with the petitioner's company.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence so as to prove that after serving the notice period and termination of her services, the respondent has approached any existing client of the petitioner company and respondent has tried to poach any client of the petitioner company by offering higher commissions. He submitted that the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that the respondent has joined a competitor company and the company joined by the respondent is in the same field of business in which the petitioner is operating. He also submitted that the present petition may OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 11 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:38:19 +0530 be dismissed with cost as the same has been filed on incorrect facts, false and frivolous documents.
11. I have considered the above submissions of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and also gone through the file.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.11.2021, the respondent was appointed on the position of 'Associate-Business Development' by the petitioner vide letter of appointment dated 22.11.2021, whereby the respondent was entrusted with handling clients and business associations alongwith managing the assigned operations and businesses of the petitioner company, and for which the respondent was given access to the highly sensitive and confidential information pertaining to student database, client database, trade secrets, customers and business partnership signed globally. Further, the petitioner company in June, 2022 decided to get non-disclosure, non-compete signed by all the employees of the company in order to prevent any potential data theft, loss of business, resources, client and customer data base etc. Thus, similar to other employees, the respondent duly executed the Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement on 14.06.2022 with the petitioner company. As per the petitioner, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent vide email dated 05.12.2022 issued notice of the resignation in terms of the Clause 8.1 of the Letter of Appointment. The respondent resigned on personal reasons and health issues. As per Clause 8.1 of the subject contract regarding notice period, the respondent further started serving her one month notice period starting from 05.12.2022 OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 12 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:23
+0530
and ending on 31.12.2022. Further, following the discussion by internal committee of the petitioner, it was decided by the petitioner to accept the respondent's resignation. The petitioner has alleged that in the meanwhile, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner via networking platform LinkedIn that the respondent has joined a company named 'UniAcco', which is in direct competition with the petitioner, on the position of Manager-Global Partnership and Strategic Alliances. Petitioner further alleged that this act of the respondent in joining a company of direct competition is violative of non-disclosure and non-compete agreement dated 14.06.2022. The petitioner also alleged that the petitioner received a screen shot of an email from its client, wherein the respondent and her new employer (UniAcco) have been in touch with one of the petitioner's client i.e. Fateh Education and had blatantly tried to poach the client by offering higher commission. It is further alleged by the petitioner that due to the act of the respondent and her new employer, the petitioner company's business with the said client i.e. Fateh Education has suffered enormously, both financially as well as mentally, alongside a dent on the goodwill it has attained over the years of committed hard work in the field. As per the petitioner, the HR of the petitioner namely, Anupam Jauhri tried to contact the respondent through email dated 13.02.2023, but the respondent failed to provide any justifiable response for violation on her part of using the confidential information obtained by her since the time of working with the petitioner. As per the petitioner, when the petitioner did not receive any justifiable OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 13 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:38:29 +0530 response from the respondent with regard to the said unfair, unethical and malafide business practices, the petitioner issued legal notice dated 07.03.2023 to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent in her reply dated 20.03.2023 to the said legal notice stated that the said resignation has been as per the provisions of the appointment letter and she had handed over all the assets and data to the petitioner company and after getting the clearance from the petitioner, she was relieved on 30.12.2022. It is contention of the petitioner that despite the said clarification, it is apprehended that the respondent is poaching the clients of the petitioner, in clear violations of confidentiality clause of the agreement signed between the parties.
13. Respondent has contended that on 14.10.2022, she had resigned from the service of the petitioner company as she was offered a job with APEEJAY Education Society. Respondent also contended that Mr. Saurabh Arora, CEO and Mr. Anupam Jauhari, HR of the petitioner company, offered the respondent to match the employment offer and persuaded the respondent for withdrawal of her resignation letter, which is clear from the email correspondences made between the parties. Respondent also contended that the petitioner was never true to its words and did not match with the offer of the employment with APEEJAY Education Society vide letter dated 27.08.2022.
Respondent also contended that she had resigned from the petitioner company due to some personal reasons and health issues, which were created due to the constant harassment and exploitation meted out to her by the senior staff of the petitioner company i.e. CEO and OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 14 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:34
+0530
HR as mentioned above. As per the respondent, she had not committed any violation of any agreement, much less non-confidential clause of the agreement as wrongly claimed by the petitioner. However, during the course of argument, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was already paying Rs.5,20,000/- to the respondent and Apeejay had offered her Rs.5,40,000/-, all inclusive, so the difference was for just Rs.20,000/-, and this is a matter of concern in regard to the contention, that the respondent left the petitioner just for a mere Rs.1,666/- per month. So as to strengthen its contentions regarding poaching of clients of the petitioner by the respondent, the petitioner has annexed the photocopy of screenshot depicting email conversation between the respondent alongwith her new employer and the petitioner's clients as annexure P-6 alongwith the petition. Perusal of the said document annexure P-6 clearly shows that the said document is not properly legible and therefore, it is difficult to conclude what is written in the said document i.e. annexure P-6. Apart from that, the petitioner has also not placed on record anything material so as to show that actually the respondent has tried to poach the clients of the petitioner or shared the confidential data of the petitioner company to anyone.
14. In the instant petition, the petitioner has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Only). However, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate its contention as to how the petitioner has suffered the loss of Rs.26 lakh due to the alleged acts of the respondent. Thus, the OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 15 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:40
+0530
petitioner has neither brought any material document on record to establish that due to the acts of the respondent, the petitioner has suffered the loss of the above mentioned amount and also that the respondent has poached or in touch with the clients of the petitioner or that the respondent has disclosed any confidential information of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner failed to bring on record any material, if the respondent in violation of the Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement, solicited directly or indirectly any customer or client of the petitioner company. Hence, the petitioner failed to substantiate its allegation against the respondent. In the judgment titled as Varun Tyagi Vs. Daffodil Software Private Limited, in FAO 167/2025 & CM APPL. 36613/2025, decided on 25.06.2025, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, observed as under:-
66. An employee cannot be confronted with the situation where he has to either work for the previous employer or remain idle. An employer-employee contracts, the restrictive or negative covenant are viewed strictly as the employer has an advantage over the employee and it is quite often the case that the employee has to sign standard form contract or not be employed at all.
67. Further, the reasonableness and whether the restraint is partial or complete is not required to be considered at all when an issue arises as to whether a particular term of contract is or is not in restraint of trade, business or profession.
68. In view of the above, it is clear that any terms of the employment contract that imposes a restriction on right of the employee to get employed post-termination OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 16 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:38:45 +0530 of the contract of employment shall be void being contrary to Section 27 of the ICA.
69. In the present case, clause 2.16 of the Employment Agreement restricts the Appellant from undertaking employment or otherwise deal with any business Associate where the appellant first contracted or was contracted by, or introduce to the Business Associate in any manner in connection with any business/professional assignment of the Respondent and/or its Affiliate. Admittedly, DIC and NeGD are covered within the definition of Business Associate under the Employment Agreement. Hence, even though, the Respondent has restricted the injunction to the employment of the Appellant with DIC and NeGD only, the same shall be in restraint of trade and void.
70. It is settled law that the negative covenant post termination of the employment can be granted only to protect the confidential and proprietary information of the employer or to restrain the employee from soliciting the clients of the employer. However, none of the cases relied upon by the Respondent has held that the employee can be restrained from undertaking any employment in order to enforce the negative covenant.
71. This Court in case of American Express Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. Priya Malik, (2006) III LLJ 540 DEL has held that right of an employee to seek and search for better employment are not to be curbed by an injunction even on the ground that the employee has confidential data. In the garb of confidentiality, the employer cannot be allowed to perpetuate forced employment. Freedom of changing employment for improving service conditions is a vital and important right of an employee, which cannot be restricted or curtailed on the ground that the employee has employer's data and confidential OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 17 of 18 M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.07.31 16:38:50 +0530 information. Such a restriction will be hit by Section 27 of the ICA.
15. Since the petitioner has accepted the resignation of the respondent and not raised any objection regarding the resignation of the respondent and hence, the respondent cannot be forced to remain idle without joining employment with any other company, she wishes to join, particularly in the circumstances that the petitioner has failed to establish its allegations against the respondent. Further, the petitioner has also failed to show if the respondent has disclosed any confidential data and information of the petitioner company or the respondent ever poached the customer or client of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above legal position as well as considering the facts of the present case and above observations, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as filed by the petitioner, is dismissed.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by lal
lal singh
Date:
singh 2025.07.31
16:38:59
+0530
Announced in Open Court (LAL SINGH)
on 31.07.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court-01)
South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi
OMP (I) (COMM.) No. 50/2023 Page 18 of 18
M/s University Living Accommodation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jasmine Setia