Facts
The Petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Respondents.
Source reference: p.1The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a non-compete and non-solicitation clause (Clause 9) in a Settlement Agreement dated 09.06.2025.
Source reference: p.2The Petitioners claimed the Respondents were violating the agreement by providing online services and conducting live classes for competitive examinations (TAT and TET) via YouTube and a mobile application.
Source reference: p.2-3During proceedings, the Petitioners narrowed their prayer to specifically restrain live classes for the 2026 examination cycle.
Source reference: p.3The Respondents contended the platforms existed prior to the agreement.
Source reference: p.3Issues
1. Whether the conduct of live classes for specific competitive examinations by the Respondents prima facie violates the non-compete obligations under the Settlement Agreement.
Source reference: p.3-42. Whether the court should refer the parties to a Sole Arbitrator despite a contractual clause providing for a three-member tribunal.
Source reference: p.4Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the court to grant interim measures of protection.
Source reference: p.1The court also applied the principles of party autonomy under the Act, allowing parties to mutually waive the requirement of a formal Section 21 notice and the necessity of a Section 11 petition to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, departing from the original three-member tribunal agreement.
Source reference: p.4Additionally, the court utilized Section 17 of the Act by directing that the Section 9 petition be treated as an interim application before the newly appointed Arbitrator.
Source reference: p.5Reasoning
The Court examined a video dated early February 2026, which showed the Respondents proposing to commence live classes for the TAT and TET examinations.
Source reference: p.3The Court found that this categorical representation prima facie indicated a violation of the "Non-Competition" clause (Clause 9.1) of the Settlement Agreement, which prohibited the Seller from entering a similar online competing business for 3.5 years.
Source reference: p.2, 4Consequently, the Court determined that a limited injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo regarding live classes, while allowing the dissemination of pre-recorded content.
Source reference: p.4Furthermore, since both parties were *ad idem* on resolving the dispute through arbitration and consented to a Sole Arbitrator, the Court exercised its discretion to appoint a Senior Advocate to ensure an expeditious resolution.
Source reference: p.4Holding
The Court granted a limited interim injunction restraining the Respondents from conducting live classes for TAT (HS), TAT (S), and TET (I & II) examinations on YouTube or mobile applications.
The Court clarified that pre-recorded videos are not prohibited.
Source reference: p.4The Court appointed Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Senior Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator.
Source reference: p.4The Section 9 petition was ordered to be treated as a Section 17 application before the Arbitrator.
Source reference: p.5The petition was disposed of with instructions for the parties to share arbitral costs equally.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
Gyanlive Education Private Limited & Ors. v. Mr. Maheshbhai A. Ahajoliya & Anr. [O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 65/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in