<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed an appeal filed by an engineer against arbitration proceedings held in Bengaluru, which awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation to his employer, Tata Elxsi Limited.</p>.<p>The engineer argued that since he had worked in Thiruvananthapuram, the arbitration could not have been held in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>The court was deciding a miscellaneous first appeal filed by Vivek R Nair and his father.</p>.<p>Vivek worked as a senior engineer with Tata Elxsi Limited at Thiruvananthapuram between July and October 2011. Since he left the job before the stipulated 18-month minimum period, as per the contract, the employer-initiated arbitration proceedings in Bengaluru.</p>.Karnataka HC orders to preserve Byju's emails amid insolvency proceedings.<p>The arbitrator awarded Rs 3-lakh compensatory cost payable to Tata Elxsi Limited. Vivek and his father challenged it in the civil court, which dismissed their arbitration suit. They then filed an appeal in the high court.</p>.<p>They argued that arbitration could not have been held in Bengaluru, as Vivek worked in Thiruvananthapuram, and hence the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction. They further claimed that Tata Elxsi Limited appointed Vivek in Kerala and that he left the job for the same reason, and thus the imposition of Rs 3-lakh compensatory cost is arbitrary.</p>.<p>Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that when Vivek had agreed in the arbitral agreement to choose Bengaluru as the venue of arbitration, he could not resile from the terms of the arbitral agreement.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the arbitral proceedings held at Bengaluru cannot be held to be without jurisdiction, but it is completely according to the conscious decision taken by both the parties as per the arbitral agreement,” the court said.</p>.<p>Insofar as the compensatory cost, the court again cited the clause in the agreement signed by Vivek. The agreement stated that he was willing to work for a minimum period of 18 months and if he resigns or leaves the job before the stipulated time, then is willing to pay the compensatory cost to the company, the court pointed out.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed an appeal filed by an engineer against arbitration proceedings held in Bengaluru, which awarded Rs 3 lakh compensation to his employer, Tata Elxsi Limited.</p>.<p>The engineer argued that since he had worked in Thiruvananthapuram, the arbitration could not have been held in Bengaluru.</p>.<p>The court was deciding a miscellaneous first appeal filed by Vivek R Nair and his father.</p>.<p>Vivek worked as a senior engineer with Tata Elxsi Limited at Thiruvananthapuram between July and October 2011. Since he left the job before the stipulated 18-month minimum period, as per the contract, the employer-initiated arbitration proceedings in Bengaluru.</p>.Karnataka HC orders to preserve Byju's emails amid insolvency proceedings.<p>The arbitrator awarded Rs 3-lakh compensatory cost payable to Tata Elxsi Limited. Vivek and his father challenged it in the civil court, which dismissed their arbitration suit. They then filed an appeal in the high court.</p>.<p>They argued that arbitration could not have been held in Bengaluru, as Vivek worked in Thiruvananthapuram, and hence the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction. They further claimed that Tata Elxsi Limited appointed Vivek in Kerala and that he left the job for the same reason, and thus the imposition of Rs 3-lakh compensatory cost is arbitrary.</p>.<p>Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that when Vivek had agreed in the arbitral agreement to choose Bengaluru as the venue of arbitration, he could not resile from the terms of the arbitral agreement.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the arbitral proceedings held at Bengaluru cannot be held to be without jurisdiction, but it is completely according to the conscious decision taken by both the parties as per the arbitral agreement,” the court said.</p>.<p>Insofar as the compensatory cost, the court again cited the clause in the agreement signed by Vivek. The agreement stated that he was willing to work for a minimum period of 18 months and if he resigns or leaves the job before the stipulated time, then is willing to pay the compensatory cost to the company, the court pointed out.</p>