ARB- 483-2025 (O&M) v. Lamrin Tech Skill University & Anr.

, Advocate, (through V.C.) Present: Ms. Shakshi Goyal, Advocate, (through V.C.) Present: for the applicant. Jatin Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. **** ( Oral ) SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE( Oral ) SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Instant application u/s 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Conciliation Act, 1996 Conciliation Act, 1996 Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, (for short, (for short, (for short, ‘1996 Act’), seeks ‘1996 Act’), seeks ‘1996 Act’), seeks ‘1996 Act’), seeks appointment of sole Arbitrator. appointment of

3. perused. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 perused. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. Operation and The rival parties herein entered into Operation and The rival parties herein entered into Management Services agreement dated Managemen

15.04.2023 (Annexure agreement dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure containing an arbitration clause as follows: A-1) containing an arbitration clause as follows: containing an arbitration clause as follows:

18. 18. 18. GOVERNING GOVERNING GOVERNING LAW LAW LAW AND AND AND DISPUTE DISPUTE DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

18.1. This Agreement shall be governed by the Indian This Agreement shall be governed by the Indian This Agreement shall be governed by the Indian law. Subject to Clause 18.2. in respect of all matters law. Subject to Clause 18.2. in respect of all matters law. Subject to Clause 18.2. in respect of all matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the courts arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the courts arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the courts of SBS Nagar, Punjab India shall have exclusive of SBS Nagar, Punjab India shall have exclusive of SBS Nagar, Punjab India shall have exclusive jurisdiction. ARB- 483-2025 (O&M) -2-

18.2. Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with the interpretation or implementation of the Agreement and/or the applicable Annexures, or out of or in connection with the breach, or alleged breach of this Agreement ("Dispute"), which cannot be amicably resolved between the University and/or Master Facilitator and/or CPL shall be referred to and settled by arbitration in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Parties mutually. The seat and venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be Chandigarh and the language of the arbitration shall be English. Any arbitration award by the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties, shall not be subject to appeal, and shall be enforced by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

18.3. During the arbitration, the Parties shall continue to fulfil their respective obligations under this Agreement except for such obligations, which are the subject matter of the arbitration.”

3.1. Dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure A-7) upon respondents seeking resolution of dispute through Sole Arbitrator, but to no avail.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has disputed agreement on account of alleged inconsistencies in execution, and scope of the arbitration agreement.

4.1. This Court has considered the objections raised by the respondents. However, at the stage of Section 11(6), the scope of examination is confined to a prima facie determination of: (a) existence of arbitration agreement, and (b) whether the disputes are manifestly arbitrable. ARB- 483-2025 (O&M) -3-

5. The law regarding the scope of examination under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is well settled. Unless it is ex facie clear that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid, or the disputes are demonstrably non-arbitrable, the matter ought to be referred to arbitration, leaving all issues open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator.

6. The Apex Court in Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, NTPC Ltd. Vs. SPML Infra Ltd. (2023) 9 SCC 385, and DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Rajapura Homes (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 675, has consistently held that the referral Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, is not expected to conduct a mini trial or enter into a detailed adjudication of disputed questions. The rule is, “when in doubt, do refer.”

7. Pre-requisites for invoking powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appear to be satisfied, as the objections raised by the respondents do not constitute a valid impediment to the exercise of this Court’s power to appoint an arbitrator as this Court does not find the case to be one of “deadwood” or a case where non-arbitrability is ex facie apparent.

8.1 Accordingly, this application is allowed. Mr. Justice Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, former Judge of this Court, residing at House No. 154, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, Mobile No. 09416393399, is hereby appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, ARB- 483-2025 (O&M) -4- subject to compliance of statutory requirements under 1996 Act before proceeding ahead.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on date, time and place to be fixed by the Arbitrator at his convenience.

10. The Arbitrator is appointed with the liberty to determine jurisdiction and rule on any objections including (but not limited to) ruling on objections with respect to the existence, execution, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement and the scope of the Arbitrator’s authority in accordance with Section 16 of the 1996 Act.

11. The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of 1996 Act, as amended from time to time, or fee as agreed to by the parties.

12. The Arbitrator is requested to complete the arbitral proceedings as per time limit stipulated u/s 29-A of 1996 Act.

13. Any observation made hereinabove is meant merely for passing this order and shall not be construed as expression on merits of the dispute.

14. A request letter along with copy of this order be sent to Mr. Justice Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, former Judge of this Court.

17.04.2026 Ajay Prasher ( SHEELNAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No