1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2007 3i Infotech Ltd. ).. Applicant Versus Mr. Krishna Govindarajapuram ).. Respondent Mr. Cyrus Bharucha a/w Mr. Durgesh Khanapurkar i/b M.K. Ambalal & Co. for the Applicant. Mr. Kedar Dighe i/b Rajani Associates for the Respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. DATED : 29TH JANUARY 2010 P.C. This Application has been filed by the Applicant Company seeking reference of the matter to the Arbitrator as there are disputes and differences between the parties in respect of the Agreement dated 21st July 1997 read with general terms and conditions made applicable by the Applicant to the Respondent. 2. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent was employed by Command International Software as an Analyst Programmer by letter of appointment dated 18th July 1997. Respondent signed a confidentiality and non-competition Undertaking 2 dated 21st July 1997 while taking up the employment with the said Command International Software. 3. The Applicant took over the business of Command International Software with its entire business operations together with all its assets and liabilities. In view of the Business Purchase Agreement under which the services of all the employees of Command International Software were to be transferred to the Applicant, the Respondent was issued letter of appointment dated 30th November 2001 but the Respondent on 7th July 2005 submitted his resignation to the Applicant and asserted that his decision to resign did not have any hidden meaning or agenda whatsoever. The Applicant accepted the resignation but subsequently found that the Respondent but subsequently found that the Respondent committed breach of the Undertaking having deviated from the obligation towards the Applicant as it was found that the Respondent’s name was appearing on the Computer System of their clients, WIN clearly indicating that Respondent also had access to the system of WIN and was rendering services. 4. Initially, a Suit came to be filed by the Applicant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane for seeking relief against 3 the Respondent. In the said Suit, the Respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said application was allowed. Pursuant to which on 4th July 2006, the Applicant by their Advocate’s letter called upon the Respondent to agree to appointment of Sole Arbitrator for the purposes of adjudication of the disputes and differences between the parties under the Agreement dated 21st July 1997. By his reply, the Respondent through’s his Advocate’s letter dated 2nd August 2006 informed that in the notice sent by the Applicant, no name of the Arbitrator was suggested and as such the Respondent was not agreeable to the requisitions contained therein. Thereafter, by letter dated 21st November 2006, the Applicant suggested names of four retired Judges of this Court and called upon the Respondent to confirm the appointment of any one of them as a Sole Arbitrator. As the Respondent refused to agree to appointment of the name of Arbitrator, the Applicant has filed this Application. 5. The Respondent did not contest the fact that the dispute arising out of the Agreement of employment has to be adjudicated by a Sole Arbitrator but contended that the venue of arbitration has to be in Bangalore as the cause of action has arisen at Vashi while the Respondent had at all times engaged by the Applicant at Bangalore and has been working there. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4 Respondent also expressed an apprehension that if he concedes to an Arbitrator appointed by this Court, it may not be proper as the Applicant ought to have moved the Karnataka High Court. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, after seeking instructions from their respective clients, submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders so that the dispute between the parties can be resolved by appointing a Sole Arbitrator. It is a fact that the Applicant Company have their establishment at Bangalore and considering that the Respondent is resident of Bangalore, it will be convenient that the Arbitrator to be nominated should be from Bangalore. Therefore, this Court appoint Mr. Justice R.G. Vaidyanatha, former Judge of this Court and who is resident of Bangalore, as a Sole Arbitrator. 7. Arbitration Application disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE