Page 1 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 Uploaded on : 24.02.2026 Arb P. No. 25/2025 M/s Orison Aviation Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate Vs Falcon Institute OD Aircraft Maintenance Engineers .….Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 01. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. 02. As per case of the petitioner, it is a private limited company dealing in providing awareness and marketing of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Course. It has been submitted that the respondent is also a private limited company and has been granted approval by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to provide advisory support services for developing and training. It Serial No. 08 Regular List Page 2 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 has been further averred that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) vide its approval certificate dated 28.09.2020 has granted approval to the respondent to provide training. 03. According to the petitioner, the respondent approached it for providing marketing and admission of students to the respondent institute. The offer of the respondent was accepted by the petitioner and a contract was executed between the parties in the shape of ‘Memorandum of Understanding’-(MOU) dated 22.12.2021. 04. As per the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the respondent was to provide necessary infrastructure facilities including aircraft, laboratory, building, classrooms, electricity, water and other facilities to conduct the training course. The petitioner had to provide overall supervision, administration, management and advisory services and be in complete charge of conducting the training courses at the premises of the respondent. The petitioner company was entrusted with the job of several duties under the memorandum of understanding. On the basis of the agreed terms and conditions, the petitioner had to undertake admissions Page 3 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 for each year by providing students to the respondent and the respondent had agreed to pay 28 per cent on total course fee i.e. Rs. 3,55,000/- including MRO training cost to the petitioner towards the fee for advisory service in two years on receipt basis. 05. It has been submitted that after execution of the memorandum of understanding, the petitioner opened its branch office at Lucknow and incurred huge expenditure in marketing and administering the institution of the respondent. The petitioner is stated to have incurred expenses in obtaining website for the respondent- institute, digital advertisement as well as physical advertisement by engaging staff and arranging accommodation for the staff. The petitioner is alleged to have printed and published brochures for the respondent-institution. The petitioner with its efforts provided students to the respondent institute for the academic year 2022-23. 06. According to the petitioner, the respondent has been charging Rs. 5,05,000/-as fee from each student for two years AME Course and 19 students got admitted with the respondent-institute through the petitioner. Thus, as per Page 4 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 the memorandum of understanding, the respondent was to pay commission to the petitioner @ 28 per cent. Thus, the respondent has to pay an amount of Rs. 47,38,600/- to the petitioner. The petitioner has given the details of the students who have been admitted with the respondent-institute through it. 07. According to the petitioner, despite the clear terms and conditions contained in the memorandum of understanding, the respondent has failed to remit 28 per cent of the course fee received by it from the 19 students who got admission through the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not only entitled to recover the said amount but it is also entitled to seek damages from the respondent in the course of arbitration. It has been further contended that the memorandum of understanding between the parties was for a period of 10 years and there is a negative covenant in the memorandum of understanding for the respondent to enter into a similar kind of contract with any third parties without the consent of the petitioner but the respondent in breach of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding has started contacting third parties for getting admission for its institute. Page 5 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 08. According to the petitioner, the respondent has failed to pay the outstanding amount to it and has also started engaging third parties for academic year 2023-24 which prompted it to serve a legal notice dated 05.01.2023 seeking recovery of amount due from the respondent. It has been submitted that a reply to the legal notice was sent by the respondent raising untenable pleas. 09. It has been further submitted that as per the memorandum of understanding dated 22.12.2021, there is an arbitration clause which provides for reference of disputes to mutually agreed arbitrator. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a notice dated 21.09.2024 under Section 11 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act wherein the petitioner nominated Sh. C.S. Gupta, Advocate as the arbitrator on its behalf but the respondent vide its reply dated 10.12.2024 did not agree with the nomination made by the petitioner, it suggested the name of Sh. Pankaj Parkash Tripathi, Advocate as an arbitrator. 10. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent nor has any reply been filed by the respondent. Page 6 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 12. So far as the assertions of the petitioner with regard to the execution of memorandum of understanding dated 22.12.2021 between the parties is concerned, the same, in the absence of the reply from the respondent have remained unrebutted. The said memorandum of understanding contains an arbitration Clause, which reads as under :- “In the event of any dispute amongst the parties, the same may be referred to a mutually agreed Arbitrator. This memorandum of understanding is subject to the jurisdiction of the city of Jammu.” 13. The petitioner has raised several disputes in its petition by pleading that it has not been paid 28 per cent commission on the total course fee in respect of the students who got admission in the respondent-institute through the petitioner. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 47,38,600/- is outstanding against the respondent. It is also alleged that as per the memorandum of understanding dated 22.12.2021, it is not open to the respondent to engage any third parties during the currency of the said memorandum of Page 7 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 understanding but the respondent has proceeded to engage a third party. Thus, the disputes have arisen between the parties. 14. The record further shows that the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause and suggested the name of Sh. C.S. Gupta, Advocate as an arbitrator which has not been agreed to by the respondent and it has suggested its own nominee Sh. Pankaj Parkash Tripathi, Advocate. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not agree to the appointment of Sh. Pankaj Parkash Tripathi, Advocate as an arbitrator because he, by issuing the reply notice dated 10.12.2024, has acted as an advisor of the respondent, thereby rendering himself ineligible to function as an arbitrator in view of Section 12 (1)(b) read with para-(1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 16. Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute about the existence of arbitration clause and that the disputes have arisen between the parties who have failed to reach a consensus regarding the choice of an arbitrator, this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to pass an order for appointment of an independent arbitrator to Page 8 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 whom the disputes that have arisen between the parties can be referred for their resolution. 17. Accordingly, Sh. Kamlesh Pandita, former District Judge of Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the agreement referred to above. 18. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Registry of this Court within a period of ten (10) days from today and the learned Arbitrator is requested to forward the ‘Statutory Statement of Disclosures’ under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to the parties within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 19. The parties shall appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator on the date and place, to be fixed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. It is further directed that all the arbitration costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally and shall be subject to the Page 9 of 9 Arb P No. 25/2025 final award that may be passed by the learned Arbitrator in relation to the costs. 20. Disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 20.02.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No