Back
SHAMPA SARKAR
SRMB Srijan Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aggarwal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Sarkar, J.
1. This is an application under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, for appointment of an Arbitrator. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent No.1 entered into a Unit Franchise Agreement with the petitioner on January 1, 2022, which was valid for two years from the effective date of the agreement, that is, January 1, 2022 or from the day of commencement of business. The terms and conditions were mutually agreed between the parties.
2. The said agreement was executed in the office of the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this court. It was agreed that the respondent No.1 would act as the franchisee of the petitioner in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and for the same purpose, it would make a payment of royalty of Rs.300 per metric tonne along with applicable taxes for the first four months and thereafter, would pay an amount of Rs.400 per metric tonne on a monthly basis along with taxes.
3. On the request of the respondent No.1, the petitioner deployed its own sales team in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and it was agreed between the parties that the co
The court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of Kolkata for arbitration proceedings as per the agreement, allowing the appointment of an arbitrator despite parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of exclusive jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings as per the specific provisions in the Master Franchise Agreement and the Ar....
(1) A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of subject matter of action, strikes at very authority of Court to pass any decree, and such a defect....
The designated seat of arbitration establishes exclusive jurisdiction for related applications, affirming that the Commercial Court in Ranchi has jurisdiction over Section 34 applications.
The court emphasized that the clear jurisdiction clause within the arbitration agreement led to habitual jurisdiction in the appointed court, regardless of other locations of execution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the venue of arbitration specified in the contract determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain applications for the appointment of a....
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction for the petitions lay in Delhi, and the respondent's unilateral appointment procedure for arbitrators was impermissible under the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
