Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mohan Ramanujam vs Bloom Energy Corporation on 24 March, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.39/2025
MOHAN RAMANUJAM PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of the Employment, Confidential Information, Invention Assignment and Arbitration Agreement dated 30.05.2014.
2. The petitioner was employed with respondent No.2, which is stated to be a subsidiary of respondent No.1, a company incorporated in the United States. It is not in dispute that the petitioner executed the aforesaid agreement containing an arbitration clause providing for resolution of employment- related disputes through arbitration.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT
3. Disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to the Date: 2026.04.02 15:50:35 IST Reason: petitioner’s employment, including issues concerning alleged 1 denial of benefits and the circumstances leading to termination of his services on 02.03.2021. The petitioner initially approached the Civil Court; however, the suit came to be dismissed in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Since the parties failed to arrive at a consensus with regard to the appointment of an arbitrator within the stipulated period, the present petition has been filed.
4. Notably, on the suggestion of the parties, the matter was previously referred to mediation vide order dated 09.01.2026. However, we are informed that the mediation has been unsuccessful.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has raised objections with regard to (i) the maintainability of the present petition as against respondent No.1, (ii) the existence of a valid arbitration agreement qua respondent No.1, and (iii) limitation. It is further submitted that certain claims sought to be raised by the petitioner are non-arbitrable in nature.
6. At this stage, it is well settled that the scope of examination under Section 11 of the Act is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement. The agreement dated 30.05.2014, on the face of the record, contains a clause providing for arbitration of disputes arising out of the petitioner’s employment, including statutory claims. 2
7. Insofar as the objections raised by respondent No.1 are concerned, the same involve questions relating to the extent of participation of respondent No.1 in the underlying transaction, the nature of the relationship between respondent Nos.1 and 2, as well as issues of limitation and arbitrability. These are mixed questions of fact and law which are more appropriately left to be decided by the learned Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Act.
8. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the dispute is amenable to arbitration. Accordingly, we appoint Justice B.S. Patil, former Judge of Karnataka High Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
9. The seat/place of arbitration shall be at Bengaluru, in terms of the governing clause contained in the Agreement. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix the fee in consultation with the parties. The parties shall share the arbitral costs equally in the first instance.
10. It is further clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties, including those relating to jurisdiction, arbitrability, limitation, and the role of respondent No.1, are kept open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.
11. The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid 3 terms. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
..........................CJI.
(SURYA KANT) ............................J. (JOYMALYA BAGCHI) NEW DELHI;
MARCH 24, 2026
4
ITEM NO.64 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Arbitration No(s).39/2025 MOHAN RAMANUJAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION & ANR. Respondent(s) [MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED] IA No. 173067/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 257607/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 24-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Paaras Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Puri, Adv.
Mr. Naveen Hegde, AOR Ms. Bhargavi Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Divyam Agarwal, AOR Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Priya Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Ms. Shrutika Garg, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Arbitration Petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5