DEEPAK PANDEY vs M/S FIITJEE LIMITED

Judgment text excerpt

$~O-17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1360/2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 IN THE MATTER OF: DEEPAK PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Ms.Anjali Rawat, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Ms. Radhika Goel, Mr. Arghay Ajay Gautam, Advs. versus M/S FIITJEE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („the Act‟), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. 2. The present dispute arises out of the Service Contract dated 10.05.2023. The petitioner contends that, despite completing his training and probation, he was neither assigned classes nor paid salaries for the months of February, March, and April 2024. He further claims that deductions made towards the “Sincerity Fund” have been wrongfully withheld. According to Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:21.11.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:36:53 1 KUMAR KAURAV the petitioner, the total outstanding amount as on date is Rs. 11,88,786/-. 3. The Service Contract contains Clause 38(a), which provides for arbitration. Clause 38(a) reads as follows: ―38. (a) All disputes and differences of any nature with regard to the FIITJEE service contract and the interpretation & adjudication of clauses and claims respectively shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Company Le. FIITJEE Ltd.. The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended upto date shall be applicable, The venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi/New Delhi only.‖ 4. Despite service, no one has appears. Service affidavit is