( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by a Franchisee of the respondent- M/s Domino s Pizza India Ltd. , who are the Master Franchisee of the parent company, Domino s Pizza International Incorporate Ltd. based at USA. The petitioner has contended that the Franchisee Agreement required from him considerable financial input of about Rs. 70 lacs apart from the valuable site and the superstructure that the petitioner already owned, in order to set up the Domino s franchise at Gurgaon.

( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that the store was opened on 13. 9. 98. The principal terms of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in so far as they are relevant are that the franchise was for a period of ten years, renewable for a further period of 10 years on terms agreeable mutually. Upfront franchise fee of Rs. 5 lacs was to be paid by the petitioner besides the payment of 6 per cent of monthly sale of the store as franchisee fee and 4 per cent of the monthly sales were to be given to the respondent for advertisement and promotion of authorised products of the respondent. The respondent was also to provide two (and in fact did provide four) managers who were totally in charge of the functions and operations of the franchise store run by. the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE salaries of such managers was to be borne by the petitioner though they were in fact managers chosen and appointed by the respondent to run and supervise the petitioner s outlet.

( 4 ) THE principal grievance of the petitioner is that sometime after a year had passed after the Franchise Agreement dated 12. 6. 1998 was entered into and acted upon between the parties, it was sought to be terminated by the respondents on 1. 3. 2000. It is stated that the Agreement between the parties stipulated regular site visits by the respondent. Such site visits were however carried on 18. 1. 2000, 18. 2. 2000 and 29. 2. 2000 which were according to the petitioner cosmetic in nature and pre-planned and a prelude to the arbitrary unlawful and planned termination of the Agreement dated 12. 6. 1998 on 1. 3. 2000. The petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had preplanned the termination of the franchise of the petitioner as is evident from the fact that in Gurgaon itself, around the same time, another outlet for its products was almost ready for operation. It is submitted that the petitioner was being singled out as a target by finding minor and insignificant faults with its functioning. It is also submitted that assuming without admitting there were some minor infractions, the responsibility for the same could be laid only at the door of the managers in charge of the store who were selected and appointed by the respondents and the petitioner could not be blamed for it. Accordingly in this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim directions, the petitioner while seeking resumption of the supplies to it by the respondent has sought a status quo ante in terms of the Agree- ment dated 12. 6. 1998 and has also sought the cancellation of the termination Notice dated 1. 3. 2000 and has prayed for restraining the respondents from bringing into operation its stores at SCF-94, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana which falls within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Clause 4 relating to the exclusive operation in the locality.

( 5 ) THE petitioner s plea is that the Agreement s termination being void ab initio, the agreement still holds the field and the petitioner is entitled to invocation of negative covenant No. 4. 2 which operates during the subsistence of the agreement. The petitioner has stated that the respondent had unlawfully taken the possession of all the stores upon termination of the said Agreement and despatched letters to various customers of the petitioner intimating them that-the store was closing down. The letter further stated that the anoth