INDIACAN EDUCATION PVT LTD Vs. AMIT POPLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter "the Act") for appointment of arbitrator(s) to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) The Agreements in question entered into between the petitioner and the respondents are identically worded and the controversies invloved in these petitions are identical; therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioner is engaged in imparting education and training in various fields of education. The petitioner claims that it has a network of technology based satellite coaching centres for coaching students for the course of chartered accountancy. The petitioner operates its coaching programme under the brand name of "ETEN CA". For the purposes of its business/coaching centres, the petitioner entered into a Faculty Engagement Agreement with Amit Popli (respondent in ARB 235/2016) on 16.10.2013. As the caption of the said ageement indicates, the agreement was for engagement of Mr. Amil Popli as a faculty member for the Coaching Centres. The term of the said agreement was for a period of two years, that is, up to 15.10.2015. This Agreement was subsequently extended for a period of one year. In the meantime, the parties entered into another Agreement titled "Contract Addendum" on 12.08.2014. Similarly worded Faculty Engagement Agreement and Contract Addendum, were also executed between the petitioner and Rakesh Kumar Mehta (respondent in ARB. P. 241/2016) on 02.09.2013 and and 12.08.2014 respectively. The Faculty Engagement Agreement contained an arbitration clause, which reads as under:-