AAKARSHAN HITESH HARLALKA Vs. VIKRANT RAVIKANT PARASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by an adult individual, Indian Inhabitant of Bombay, who claims to possess goods knowledge in the Food Aggregator Industry, being aggrieved by the order dtd. 7/5/2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator under Sec. 17 of the said Act. By the impugned order, the Arbitrator has restrained the petitioner from commencing or continuing any business which is in direct or indirect competition with the business of Three Wise Meals LLP (hereinafter referred to as 'LLP') The Arbitrator has also restrained the petitioner from using or disclosing for commercial purposes any business information or trade secrets pertaining to the LLP and also from poaching, soliciting the clients, customers or employees of Three Wise Meals LLP for business or commercial purposes.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Anoshak Daver along with Mr. Nishit Tana for the petitioner and Advocate Gulnar Mistry with Ms. Lizam Wangdu for the respondent. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced, it is necessary to summarise the background facts, which has lead to the filing of the present proceedings.

(3.) Three Wise Meals LLP was incorporated by the respondent, Vikrant Ravikant Paraskar along with one Sushma Gaba and Dishank Arora as its designated partner, who executed a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement on 14/10/2017. According to the petitioner, it was a non-starter and dormant LLP, as it did not even open its account in any Bank or carried any business or acquired any assets or liabilities since its coming into existence. The petitioner was working with a Food Aggregator Business Company, Zomato, in various capacities, as Accounts Manager, Campaign Manager, Business Analyst from November 2018 to December 2020. He was introduced to the respondent while he was running a restaurant at Dahisar and a bond of friendship developed between the two, as they exchanged business ideas. The respondent invited the petitioner to join him as a business partner but, this offer was not accepted by the petitioner as he was working with Zomato. However, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner, that he continued to render his assistance to the respondent, who was by that time, conducting a business as a Sole Proprietor in the name of 'Apt Analytics', and for his valuable assistance rendered, some payments were also made.