ARB.P. 506/2026 $~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010112052026 + ARB.P. 506/2026 AAKASH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranav Proothi and Mr. Anshveer Singh Nalwa, Advocates. versus SHESH NARAYAN MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Mr. Saswat Adhyapak and Ms. Namita Kumari, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 21.09.2026 1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause 10.2.1 of the ‘Employment Terms & Conditions of Service’ (Employment Terms). 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent was employed with the Petitioner as Deputy Professor on 06.01.2025 and given exposure to subject expertise, management techniques, systems, processes etc., as also provided with study material and sample test papers, prepared by the expert faculty members. Respondent, however, resigned without following the terms and conditions of appointment, which entitles the Petitioner to seek monetary compensation for breach of terms of appointment and confidentiality obligations, which resulted in disruption of studies of the students, who were This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:56 ARB.P. 506/2026 part of Respondent’s teaching batch. Disputes having arisen, Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause and sent a notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act on 27.12.2025 for appointment of an Arbitrator, to which Respondent replied on 11.01.2026, denying the contents of the notice and seeking time to suggest the name of the Arbitrator but thereafter, no response was received, compelling the Petitioner to file the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Employment Terms contain an Arbitration Clause 10.2.1, whereby any dispute or difference arising from or in any manner relating to the agreement shall be referred for adjudication under the 1996 Act to a Sole Arbitrator, whose decision shall be final. Since disputes have arisen and despite invocation notice, Respondent has failed to agree mutually to the Sole Arbitrator, the Court may appoint an Arbitrator. Arbitration Clause 10.2.1 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “10.2.1 That the Parties agree that this ETC shall be construed in accordance with the laws in force in India and in the eventuality of any dispute or difference (including in the eventuality of violation of the Agreement by any party) should arise on any matter relating to or arising out of the present Agreement, the same shall be referred to the arbitration within 60 days of either party notifying the other party to the Agreement of such dispute, for adjudication under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Parties hereby mutually agree to appoint a sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the Parties, whose decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties. The sole Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration proceedings at Delhi.” 4. Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, learned counsel for Respondent submits that the averments and allegations in the petition are disputed on merits albeit the existence of the Arbitration Clause in the Employment Terms is not denied. He further submits that if the Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator, liberty be granted to the Respondent to file counter claim, if any. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:56 ARB.P. 506/2026 5. The Employment Terms contain an Arbitration Clause 10.2.1, existence of which is not disputed by the Respondent. The scope and ambit of a referral Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of 1996 Act has been laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgments but to avoid prolixity, I may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, where it is held that the use of the term ‘Examination’ under Section 11(6-A) of 1996 Act, implies that the scope of enquiry is limited to prima facie scrutiny of the existence of the arbitration agreement and nothing else. 6. Accordingly, Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Advocate (Mobile No. 9893195602) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Arbitral proceedings will be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’). Fee of the Arbitrator shall be fixed as per fee schedule under DIAC (Administrative Cost & Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. 7. Learned Arbitrator shall give disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act before entering upon reference. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. 9. It is left open to the Respondent to prefer a counter claim, if any, before the learned Arbitrator. 10. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/YA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/09/2026 at 13:59:56