Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29349 (CHH)

JAISWAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. ZEE LEARN LIMITED

ARBR/28/2026 · 2026-07-26

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010168152026 2026:CGHC:32132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 28 of 2026 Jaiswal Educational Society Reresented -Through -Dr. Jyoti Jaiswal -W/o Dr. Rahul Jaiswal Aged 41 Years infront of Bengali Old Age Home, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mopka, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Zee Learn Limited, Registered Office-135, Continental Building, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400018 ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abid Ahmad, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abid Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 11(6)(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has concealed the fact that the seat of Arbitration is Mumbai and the petition for appointment of Arbitrator ought to have been filed before the Court having the jurisdiction. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.29 16:07:58 +0530 2 4. Mr. Tehanguria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the last date of hearing, notices were issued to the respondent pursuant to which the counsel for the respondent has appeared today and has also filed his reply and as such, there should not be any impediment in appointment of the Arbitrator by this Court. 5. Though notices were issued by this Court on 28.04.2026 pursuant to which return has also been filed, but the respondent has raised an objection that since the terms of the agreement {clause 17(3)} itself provides that the seat of Arbitration would be Mumbai, this petition is not maintainable before this. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the competent Court/forum having the jurisdiction. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti