Today(on 22nd August),The Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe, focusing on allegations of confidentiality breaches by the former CEO.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 22nd August), The Delhi High Court has passed an order for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to address and resolve the ongoing disputes between Ashneer Grover, former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Managing Director of BharatPe, and the fintech company itself. The disputes have primarily arisen due to allegations against Grover for allegedly breaching confidentiality as stipulated in his employment agreement with BharatPe.
The order was issued by Justice C Hari Shankar following a plea filed by BharatPe under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The company’s contention was that Grover, during his tenure as CEO and Managing Director, had access to critical and confidential information pertaining to the company. BharatPe alleged that Grover disclosed this sensitive information through various social media posts, thereby violating the confidentiality clause of his employment agreement.
To address these disputes, BharatPe proposed the appointment of a sole arbitrator, suggesting the name of former Supreme Court judge, Justice Hemant Gupta. The company emphasized the need for swift resolution of the matter, given the sensitive nature of the information involved. BharatPe stated that it had already issued a notice to Grover invoking arbitration under the terms of the employment agreement and proposed Justice Gupta as the appropriate candidate for the role of the arbitrator.
Grover, represented by Advocate Giriraj Subramanium, did not oppose the matter being referred to arbitration. However, he expressed reservations about the appointment of Justice Gupta as the sole arbitrator. Instead, Grover proposed that Justice (Retired) JR Midha be considered for the position, offering an alternative to the candidate suggested by BharatPe.
During the court proceedings, Advocate Giriraj Subramanium argued that-
“Grover has agreed to the matter being referred to arbitration.”
but highlighted that since another tribunal, under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), is already handling disputes between Grover and BharatPe over the shareholders’ agreement, this new matter might also be referred to the same tribunal for consistency and coherence in the arbitration process.
However, BharatPe, represented by Advocate Anuj Berry, opposed this submission. Berry argued that the employment agreement specifically does not mention the SIAC as the forum for resolving such disputes.
“The employment agreement does not specify that disputes between the parties will be resolved according to the SIAC procedure.”
-the Court noted, agreeing with BharatPe’s stance.
In light of the arguments presented, the Court decided that the arbitration concerning the employment agreement violations would proceed under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). This decision underscores the Court’s position that the employment contract’s terms and conditions are to be interpreted strictly as written, without conflating them with other agreements or tribunals.
This dispute between Grover and BharatPe has been escalating over the past few months. BharatPe had previously filed a Section 9 petition before the High Court, seeking to restrain Grover from making public disclosures about the company’s internal matters. Grover, after the petition, took down the controversial posts and issued an apology, which temporarily alleviated the situation.
However, with the recent order, the Court has referred this particular issue, along with the broader disputes concerning the alleged breach of confidentiality, to the appointed arbitrator. The involvement of a sole arbitrator, under the DIAC, is expected to streamline the arbitration process and bring clarity to the contentious issues between the parties.
The petition on behalf of BharatPe was filed through Advocates Anuj Berry and Sourabh Rath of Trilegal, who have been actively representing the fintech firm in its legal proceedings against Grover.
