Section 11 proceedings dispensed with upon mutual agreement to appoint sole arbitrator during Section 9 hearing.

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim injunctive relief to restrain the Respondent from using the brand name "The Millennium School," its trademarks, curriculum, pedagogy, and associated intellectual property

The disputes arose from a Collaboration Agreement dated 07.06.2016, which contained an arbitration clause (Clause 19) and a jurisdiction clause (Clause 20) designating Noida courts

The Petitioner invoked arbitration via a Section 21 notice on 23.12.2025

During proceedings, both parties consented to refer the disputes to a Sole Arbitrator

1. Whether the Court should appoint a Sole Arbitrator and dispense with the requirement of separate proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the mutual consent of the parties

2. Whether interim protection, specifically regarding disclaimers on admission forms, should be granted pending the arbitral proceedings

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the court

Section 21 regarding the commencement of arbitral proceedings

While Section 11 governs the appointment of arbitrators, the court exercised its discretion to dispense with its formal requirement to prevent undue delay in the commencement of proceedings

Section 12(2) was referenced regarding the mandatory disclosures required by the arbitrator

The court noted that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the referral of their disputes to a Sole Arbitrator

To ensure the arbitral process was not "unduly delayed," the court bypassed the procedural necessity of a separate Section 11 petition, citing the "peculiar facts" and mutual consent of the parties

Regarding the interim relief sought for the protection of the "Millennium" brand, the court recorded an undertaking from the Respondent's counsel to include a specific disclaimer on all admission forms

This disclaimer informs parents that the use of the school name is subject to the pending legal dispute, following a precedent set in a similar 2022 case

The court determined that since the subject matter was valued at approximately 3.5 crores, the appointment of a retired Supreme Court Judge was appropriate

The Respondent was directed to include a mandatory disclaimer on all future admission forms regarding the pendency of the brand name dispute

The Court dispensed with the need for a separate Section 11 application and granted the parties liberty to explore amicable settlement through mediation during the interim period

The petition was disposed of with the direction that all rights and contentions remain open for the arbitrator's decision