Goswami & Nigam LLP | View firm profile
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by a common order dated January 8, 2026, has declined to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in three employment-related disputes involving TaskUs India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the parties must first exhaust the institutional arbitration mechanism under the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) Rules.
The order was passed by Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi in Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025, filed by Anshul Chawla, Bhagat Singh Bhati and Bhavana Yadav against TaskUs India Pvt. Ltd. and others.
The three petitioners, had relied upon their respective employment agreements containing identical dispute resolution clauses providing that any dispute arising out of or relating to employment would be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed in accordance with the MCIA Rules, with the seat and venue of arbitration at Indore.
The petitioners invoked arbitration by notices dated July 28, 2025, which were accepted by the company on August 29, 2025, with the Company expressly insisting that the appointment of the arbitrator be carried out strictly in accordance with the MCIA Rules. However, instead of approaching MCIA, the petitioners moved the High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Before the Court, the petitioners contended that the arbitration clause was unworkable, arguing that while the MCIA Rules were applicable, the seat of arbitration was fixed at Indore, whereas MCIA is based in Mumbai. According to the petitioners, both could not operate simultaneously, necessitating court intervention under Section 11.
Rejecting this submission, the High Court held that Rule 30 of the MCIA Rules expressly permits parties to agree upon any seat of arbitration, and that Mumbai operates only as the default seat in the absence of such agreement. The Court observed that fixing Indore as the seat while adopting the MCIA Rules did not render the arbitration clause inconsistent or inoperative.
The Court further noted that TaskUs had accepted the invocation of arbitration and had not refused to follow the agreed appointment procedure, thereby ruling out any failure of the mechanism contemplated under the contract.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company (2019) 15 SCC 682, as well as earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Dwivedi reiterated that a court may exercise powers under Section 11 only when the agreed procedure for appointment of an arbitrator has failed.
Since the petitioners had not approached MCIA for appointment of an arbitrator, the Court held that the petitions were premature.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all three petitions, while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of a sole arbitrator in accordance with their employment agreements and the MCIA Rules.
TaskUs India Pvt. Ltd. was represented by Goswami & Nigam LLP through its Partner, Mr. Nishant Nigam.