[2025:RJ-JP:29550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No.94/2024 Mr.Sudhey Sharma S/o Shri Devendra Nath Sharma, R/o 113/25, Sector-11, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. ----Applicant Versus M/s V2V Cybersecurity Private Limited, a Private Limited Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 2019, having its Registered Office at FN S-1, PN 2/522 Chitrakoot, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302021 through its Director & authorized signatory Shri Vikas Soni. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr.Jai Lodha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms.Vartika Mehra, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 01/08/2025 1. This application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act’) seeking direction for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that the applicant was an employee of the respondent-company. The services were terminated vide order dated 11.03.2024. The contract entered into between the parties provided for dispute resolution through arbitration. 3. The arbitration clause (s) is reproduced below:- “Dispute Resolution and Governing Law:- Parties shall endeavor to amicably resolve all disputes arising hereunder. Thereafter, parties may refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for proceedings carried out by a court-appointed arbitrator. The courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan shall have the [2025:RJ-JP:29550] (2 of 3) [ARBAP-94/2024] exclusive jurisdiction to preside on matters arising hereunder.” 4. The applicant served a notice dated 19.06.2024 for appointing the arbitrator. On failure to do the needful, the present arbitration application is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that an FIR has been registered against the applicant and hence, the termination dispute cannot be referred for arbitration. Relies upon decision of the Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors. reported in [(2011)5 SCC 532]. 6. The contention raised by learned counsel for the non- applicant lacks merit. 7. It is not the case of the respondent that dispute is not covered under the arbitration clause. 8. Reliance placed upon decision of Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. (supra) does not enhance the case of the respondent. In the case relied upon, the issue was pending in a civil suit and in the meantime arbitration was sought on the same issue. In the case in hand, the termination per se is subject matter of the investigation in FIR. 9. In view of the above, the application is disposed of by appointing Mr.Ravindra Kumar Maheshwari, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) Resident of D-25, Keshav Bihar (Rituraj Home), Near Airport Terminal-2, JLN Road, Jaipur Mobile No.94144-27419 as sole arbitrator. 10. The arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, as amended. The fee of the arbitrator will be equally borne by both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:29550] (3 of 3) [ARBAP-94/2024] 11. The arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29A of the Act. 12. Since the main case has been disposed of, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. Copy of this order be sent to the appointed arbitrator. (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/91