1 2025:CGHC:32744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 5 of 2025 M/s Univabs Solution Pvt Ltd. Through Its Authorized Signatory Jayant Bhandari, S/o Late Mr. A.C. Bhandari, Aged About 59 Years, Having Its Registered Office At Suite No. 101, S.T.P.I, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, Chhattisgarh- 490020 ... Applicant versus 1. Mr. Manu Gautam S/o Late Shri J.S. Gautam Aged About 48 Years R/o Plot No. 10, Street No. 3, Bansi Vihar Road, Near Pradipti Nagar, Borsi, Durg Chhattisgarh, 2. The Radiology Group LLC Through Its Director, Having Its Office Radiology Group. Whose Address Was 3475 P. Mont Road, Suite 1150, Atlanta, Georgia 30305 And Currently As Per Their Web Site The Address Is 3344 Peach Tree Road Ne, Suite 2080, Atlanta GA 30326. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following relief: PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:36:57 +0530 2 “ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to constitute an arbitral tribunal comprising with a Sole Arbitrator amongst the Hon’ble Retired Judges from the High Court of Chhattisgarh or as this Hon’ble Court may fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and pass such other orders in favour of the applicant including cost of the application.” 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is inter alia engaged in the business of providing the services of Indian certified radiologist to pre-read radiology interpretation and provide medical assistance, support services for preparing radiology reports in a manner as required by its customers and the present application is being preferred through its authorized signatory Mr. Jayant Bhandari who has been duly authorized in this regard by the applicant company through its board resolution dated 13.06.2024. Respondent No.1 was appointed by the applicant on 08.10.2012 as a proofreader for a period of 12 months, which was subsequently extended by mutual agreement until January 2023. The appointment letter contained detailed terms and conditions, including specific clauses regarding the employee's obligations during and after their employment. Clause 6(a) prohibited the employee from engaging in activities that could adversely impact the company's reputation, image ог business. Clause 7(b) restricted the employee from or indirectly in activities engaging directly conflicting with the company's interests. Clause 7(c) outlined the conflict-of-interest policy, requiring the employee not to solicit, induce, or encourage any employee, customer, or vendor of the applicant company to terminate or alter their relationship with the company. Clause 8, the confidentiality clause, prohibited the disclosure of confidential information during and up to one year after cessation of employment. 4. Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in addition 3 to the appointment letter, the parties entered into an employment agreement dated 08.10.2012. Clause 4 of the agreement restricted the employee from engaging in similar or competing business with the company's customers or clients for a specified period. It is submitted that a Non-Compete and Non- Solicitation Agreement was duly executed between the applicant and respondent No. 1 on 02.11.2022, with the primary objective of safeguarding the proprietary interests and business operations of the applicant's company. This agreement was designed to prevent respondent No. 1 from engaging in activities that would directly or indirectly compete with the applicant's business or solicit the applicant's clients, employees, or confidential information. It is submitted that, the applicant entered into an agreement on 31.01.2022 with The Radiology Group (TRG), based in Atlanta, Georgia. Under this agreement, the applicant provided Indian-certified radiologists and medical assistance for preparing radiology reports. 5. Mr. Chopda also submits that the respondent herein was employed with the applicant company until the end of January 2023, specifically to handle work assigned for The Radiology Group, wherein the respondent served as the Team Head, discharging functions on behalf of the applicant company and receiving a regular salary in accordance with the terms of the employment agreement and the non-compete clause. However, the respondent resigned via email dated 24.01.2023, requesting termination of their services, which was subsequently discovered to be motivated by the respondent's unauthorized disclosure of the applicant's confidential information to respondent No. 2, which the applicant accepted on 03.02.2023, effective from 24.01.2023. Respondent No. 1 was directed to return all company materials and records. It is submitted that, following his resignation, Respondent No. 1 joined The Radiology Group (TRG) and, in direct contravention of the confidentiality agreement executed between the 4 applicant and Respondent No. 1, disclosed sensitive and proprietary information. This includes, but is not limited to, details regarding salary structures and payments made to radiology assistants. The breaches of confidentiality are further substantiated by email correspondences dated 30.01.2023 and 07.02.2023, which unequivocally confirm the unauthorized disclosure the applicant's confidential information by Respondent No. 1 to the benefit of Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the applicant-initiated arbitration proceedings against TRG before the American Arbitration Association in relation to disputes arising out of the contract between the parties. During the course of the arbitration, TRG submitted evidence, including emails from Respondent No. 1, which substantiated the claim that Respondent No. 1 had obtained employment with TRG and had disclosed confidential information belonging to the applicant, thereby breaching the terms of the agreement. Due to Respondent No. 1's actions, the applicant has suffered significant losses, including termination of contracts, loss of business, and damages amounting to ₹5,71,86,871/-. It is submitted that the applicant issued a legal notice to Respondent No. 1 on 30.08.2024, addressing the alleged breaches of the agreement. In response, Respondent No. 1 provided a reply dated 20.09.2024, denying the allegations made in the notice. However, the respondent's reply failed to adequately address the issue of employment with TRG, which remains a key point of contention in the dispute. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1, by disclosing confidential information, has breached fundamental terms of the agreements between the parties, resulting in substantial losses for the applicant, which to Rs. have amounted 5,71,86,871/ as of the date when the application under section 9 was preferred by the Applicant herein before the Learned Commercial Court (District level) at Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur C.G.. These losses are primarily attributed to terminated contracts, loss of business, profits, opportunities, 5 and other consequential damages. The applicant seeks leave to amend or increase the claim amount, in addition to seeking recovery of interest from the respondents, who are jointly and severally liable for the losses incurred. 6. Mr. Chopda later submits that the unlawful disclosure of confidential information by Respondent No. 1 has been utilized by Respondent No. 2 in ongoing judicial proceedings, thereby further exacerbating the applicant's losses. It is contended that both respondents have acted in contravention with the intent to cause substantial harm to the applicant. Consequently, the applicant asserts that both respondents are jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered. It is submitted that the applicant filed a complaint with the police on 29.08.2024 regarding the matter at hand. However, in the absence of any action taken by the police, the applicant has subsequently approached the Superintendent of Police, Durg, C.G., requesting the registration of an FIR against respondent No. 1 under sections 306, 314, 316, and 318 of the Indian Penal Code, 2023. The applicant contends that these actions have become necessary continued defiance exhibited by due to the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that considering the ongoing violations committed by respondent No. 1, dispute has arisen between the parties and as per clause 6 of the Agreement dated 08.10.2012 there exists a Arbitration Clause under the agreements entered between the parties and the same is reproduced herein-below for immediate perusal of this Court. The parties here to further agree that any dispute difference or claim whatsoever, arising out of Oregon in relation to this agreement or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this agreement or the validity or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration held by the sole arbitrator appointed by the company and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. The seat of arbitration shall be at Bhilai or Durg District Durg C.G.". It is further submitted that although the 6 respondents acknowledged receipt of the legal notice issued by the applicant, their response, dated 20.09.2024, categorically denied the allegations set forth in the notice. However, the respondents' reply failed to adequately address the crucial issue which remains a key point of contention in the dispute. Consequently, in the absence of a satisfactory resolution, the applicant has been compelled to invoke the Arbitration Clause as stipulated in the agreement between the parties. However, despite the passage of more than 15 days from the receipt of the notice, the respondents have failed to take any action to either settle the outstanding payment or agree to the nomination of the arbitrator, as required by the notice. As a result, the applicant has been left with no choice but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that the applicant has already nominated Hon'ble Justice (Retired) Shri G Minhajuddin as the arbitrator to resolve the dispute, as outlined in the notice dated 30th August 2024. The dispute is clear, as respondent No. 1 has not only joined another company but also unlawfully disclosed confidential documents, resulting in substantial harm to the applicant. It is submitted that as the respondent no.1 have been disclosing the trade secret and other relevant confidential information to the respondent no.2 thus an application under section 9 has been preferred by the applicant on 20.01.2024 before the Commercial Court at Naya Raipur registered as Arbitration MJC No. 65/2024 which is pending consideration and in which an ad interim order dated 10.12.2024 has also been passed. It is submitted that as the respondents are in complete derogation of the sacrosanct terms of the contracts thus in order to save the amount in dispute and for prohibitory injunction the Applicant has filed an Application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 20.11.2024 before the Learned Commercial Court (District Level) at Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur 7 C.G. which is pending consideration before the said Court and notices have been issued to the respondents. Thus, although dispute has arisen between the parties and since the respondents responding to the fervent requests and nomination made by the applicant thus being left with no other option the applicant files the instant application. 7. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was appointed to the post of Proof-Reader by the applicant company vide appointment letter dated 08.10.2012 for an initial period of twelve months. The engagement continued thereafter on extended terms, and the services of the respondent were retained continuously by the applicant Company until January 2023. On 31.01.2022, the applicant entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2, pursuant to which respondent No. 2 outsourced radiology services to the applicant Company for a fixed tenure of one year. In discharge of this agreement, the applicant deployed radiologists from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, seven days a week, for the duration of the agreement. After execution of above mentioned agreement between the applicant and respondent No. 2, the respondent entered into a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement with the applicant company on 02/11/2022. Further, the respondent was actively engaged with the applicant company until the end of January 2023, primarily for the assignments pertaining to respondent No. 2, which formed a substantial part of the Applicant's operational workflow. During this period, the respondent was entrusted with significant responsibilities and was designated as the Team Head of the group deployed for executing services on behalf of the applicant under its contractual arrangement with respondent No. 2. 8. Mr. Khetrapal further submits that in the first half of January 2023, the respondent was orally informed by Mr. Jayant Bhandari, Director of the Applicant Company, that his services were no longer required. This 8 instruction was issued without any formal communication. Thereafter, on 11.01.2023, the applicant unilaterally disabled the respondent's access to work-related platforms and internal systems, thereby effectively preventing him from discharging any professional functions. Despite the absence of a formal termination letter, it became evident that the applicant had constructively terminated the respondent's engagement. The respondent, in good faith and to maintain professional decorum, addressed an email dated 22.01.2023 to multiple officials of the applicant, acknowledging the cessation of his work duties and confirming the same in writing. Thereafter, 4.01.2023, the respondent voluntarily and unconditionally submitted his resignation, which was duly accepted by the applicant vide email dated 03.02.2023, with a clear statement that no notice period was required to be served and the resignation would be effective from 24.01.2023. Thus, the employment relationship formally and conclusively came to an end. The post-resignation, the respondent began offering freelance services in the open market, strictly within the bounds of law. At no point did the respondent act in violation of any contractual obligation or legal restraint. The applicant never raised any objection at the time of separation nor issued any formal notice seeking to enforce any restrictive covenant. The applicant's allegations suggesting that the respondent engaged in activities detrimental to its interests or associated with a competitor are entirely baseless, speculative, and unsupported by evidence. The respondent has not misused any confidential data, nor has he acted in any manner prejudicial to the applicant. He has consistently upheld professional ethics and confidentiality, even after his separation from the company. 9. It is pertinent to state that the applicant, despite having accepted the voluntary resignation of the respondent without any objection, subsequently chose to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and 9 Conciliation Act, 1996, by filing Arbitration MJC No. 65/2024 before the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur, seeking interim reliefs of an injunctive and coercive nature against the respondents. 10. He further submits that application is not maintainable in the absence of any existing or continuing dispute between the parties. The employment relationship between the applicant and the respondent stood conclusively terminated in January 2023 through a voluntary resignation, which was duly accepted by the applicant without demur. No monetary or contractual claims remain pending on either side. The absence of a live controversy renders the arbitration proceedings otiose. The applicant has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, Naya Raipur by filing proceedings under Section 9 of the Act in Arbitration MJC No. 65/2024. Proceeding, arising from the same factual matrix and the same apprehended breaches, was adjudicated upon and disposed of by a reasoned order dated 25.01.2025. The said order imposed a specific direction concerning non-disclosure of confidential information. The adjudication under Section 9 amounts to a judicial determination of the interim rights of the parties. The present application, being founded on identical facts and issues, amounts to a second bite at the cherry and is liable to be dismissed. The present application is essentially an attempt to reopen issues that have already been decided by a competent Court. It amounts to pursuing the same matter repeatedly, which is not legally permissible. The applicant is trying to use different legal forums to raise the same facts and claims, which reflects misuse of the legal process. 11. In support of his contentions, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dushyant Janbandhu v. Hyundai Autoever India (P) Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3691). Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the return filed on behalf of respondent, opposes this 10 arbitration request application, however, he submits that the respondent will have no objection if any Arbitrator is appointed by this Hon’ble Court for resolving the dispute that has arisen between the parties. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 13. A query was put to learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether they are agreeable for a common name who can be appointed as Arbitrator, learned counsel for the parties submitted that they would have no objection if any retired Judge of District Court is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. They further submit that Mr. N.D.Tigala, who is a retired District Judge may be appointed as Arbitrator. 14. In view of the above consensus between the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. N.D.Tigala, a retired Judge of District Court is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute involved in this arbitration request between the parties. 15. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. N.D.Tigala in the proper address. 16. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled with the mutual consent of the parties. 17. The arbitration request petition, accordingly, stands allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti