Karnataka High Court
M/S. Nova Pulse Ivf Clinic Private ... vs Dr. Radhakrishnan Parthipan on 31 May, 2022
Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.45/2018
BETWEEN :
M/S. NOVA PULSE
IVF CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
NO.128, 5TH FLOOR
GOLDEN TOWERS,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
KODIHALLI BENGALURU - 560 017
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
TEJASVI K V.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. GIRISH K V., ADVOCATE)
AND :
DR. RADHAKRISHNAN PARTHIPAN
S/O PRATHIPAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.67 ARULANANDA AMMAL NAGAR
5TH STREET, THANJAVUR - 613 007.
... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO
ADJUDICATE UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE
2
AFOREMENTIONED IN AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, 'the Act'] against his employee. The petitioner relies upon the arbitration clause which is part of the terms and conditions of the respondent's employment as a 'Trainee Embryologist'. The petitioner contends that the respondent is issued letter of appointment on 11.01.2016 inter alia on the condition that the respondent shall remain employed with the petitioner for a period of twenty four months and if he voluntarily leaves the employment or if he is asked to leave the company for any reason prior to the completion of twenty four months, he shall be liable to refund to the petitioner the training investment computed based on 3 the salary for the mandatory service or residual period. The respondent has tendered his resignation with effect from 03.10.2016 much before the expiry of twenty four months. The petitioner has caused legal notice firstly on 15.03.2017 and on 10.05.2017. The petitioner has suggested the name of a former Judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator. The respondent has not responded to the same The learned counsel submits that, given the documents which are not controverted, the existence of an agreement for arbitration and the dispute cannot be disputed so also the fact that the petitioner has caused legal notice in terms of Section 11[5] of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a retired District Judge could be appointed as a sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute. On a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has 4 established the necessary ingredients for appointment of a sole arbitrator to consider all the questions and decide on the dispute raised by the petitioner.
For the foregoing, the following:
ORDER [a] The petition is allowed; [b] Smt. K.A. Lalitha, retired District Judge, No.55, 2nd Main Road, Royal Placid Layout, PWD Quarters, 1st Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru - 560 068, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the 5 Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru.
[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru and Smt. K.A. Lalitha, retired District Judge, No.55, 2nd Main Road, Royal Placid Layout, PWD Quarters, 1st Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru
- 560 068, as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-