IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.Kulkarni, J.
Priya Malay Sheth – Appellant
Versus
VLCC Health Care Ltd. – Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Application (L.) No. 3094 of 2022
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Application under Sec. 11 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec. 11, Sec. 12(1), Sec. 20, Sec. 37 - The court discussed the arbitration agreement under Clause 13.1 and 13.2, the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., Perkins Eastman Architects DPC. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., Bharat Aluminium Company and Ors. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. and Ors., BGS SGS Soma JV vs. NHPC Ltd., Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Airvisual Ltd., and Balapreetham Guest House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mypreferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. The court concluded that the seat of arbitration is at Delhi, and the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal lies with the Courts at Delhi.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitral tribunal for adjudication of disputes and differences arising from an agreement. The respondent company, engaged in 's limming, skin and hair services', had persuaded the applicant to become an infrastructure provider for running a 'VLCC slimming, skin and hair services Centre' in Mumbai. Disputes arose between the parties, and the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seat of arbitration is at Delhi, and therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings for appointment of an arbitral tribunal lies with the Courts at Delhi. The application was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings before the Court at Delhi.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application under Sec. 11 of the Act, and the interpretation of the arbitration agreement under Clause 13.1 and 13.2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments, emphasizing the importance of the seat of arbitration in conferring jurisdiction on Courts in arbitration proceedings.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of, with liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings before the Court at Delhi.
JUDGMENT
G.S.KULKARNI, J. - This is an application filed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") whereby the applicant has prayed for appointment of an arbitral tribunal for adjudication of the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties under an agreement titled as the 'Infrastructure and Facility Management Agreement' dtd. 14/7/2018 (for short "the said agreement").
2. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be engaged interalia in the business of 's limming, skin and hair services' it possesses the right to use its trade mark, trade names, copyrights, designs, logos, slogans, commercial symbols and operates under the trade mark VLCC.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the respondent being an infrastructure provider, had persuaded the applicant to become a collaborator and infrastructure provider for running of what is described as "VLCC slimming, skin and hair services Centre" (for short "the centre") for its business activities in Mumbai. Accordingly the agreement in question came to be entered between the applicant and the respondents for running of such centre at Unit No.3, Kailas Business Park, Village Ghatkopar, Veer Savarkar Road, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079, under the name and style of "VLCC". Under the said agreement, the applicant was described as an "Infrastructure Provider". The purpose of the agreement was to interalia enable the respondent to carry out business activities at the premises/centre which would be developed by the applicant (the Infrastructure Provider) as per Clause 3 of the said agreement, by using the mark and know-how of VLCC. The applicant was to aid the respondent to have the premises on lease for a minimum period of five years for establishing its centre, and thereafter the respondent was to enter into a lease deed with the owner of the premises (landlord). The applicant as an infrastructure provider was to undertake the development of the premises by incurring all expenses through its own resources as per the approval of the respondent. Under the said agreement, it was also agreed that the respondent shall have exclusive rights over the products, equipments etc. for carrying out activities of the centre. The term of the agreement was for five years from the date of commencement of the operations of the centre. Clause 6 of the said agreement provided for the financial consideration, to include that the applicant was to invest amounts to set up such VLCC, centre at the agreed premises. It was agreed that the total investment by the applicant shall be limited to Rs.1.25 crores excluding taxes. Clause 6.3 of the agreement provided for the entitlement of the applicant to receive amounts from the respondent. Under Clause 12 the parties agreed that the governing law for the purposes of the said agreement, would be the laws of India. Clause 13 was the dispute resolution and the arbitration clause. Clauses 12 and 13 are required to be noted, which read thus:-
"12. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of India.
13. DISPUTES RESOLUTION and ARBITRATION
13.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever arises between the Parties in connection with the Agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, the Parties shall seek to resolve any such dispute or difference by mutual consultation. If the Parties fail to resolve such dispute or difference by mutual consultation, then either Party may give to the other Party formal notice in writing that the dispute of difference exists, specifying its nature, the point(s) in issue and its intention to refer the dispute to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator appointed by VLCC.
13.2 It is agreed between the parties that in such event the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of
Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airvisual Ltd
Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. Vs. Kamachi Industries Ltd
Brahmani River Pellets Vs. Kamachi Industries Ltd
Bharat Aluminium Company and Ors. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc.
Enercon (India) Ltd. Vs. Enercon Gmbh
Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. Vs. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd
The jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator lies with the court where the principal agreement was executed, as per Section 11(6), despite a venue specified in an ancillary agreement.
Point of law: Where any disputes arise between parties in respect of or in connection with the agreement then parties shall first endeavour to conciliate the disputes failing which the same shall be ....
The designation of a venue for arbitration also constitutes the seat, thus excluding jurisdiction of other courts as per party autonomy principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.