The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in respect of an arbitral award, emphasizing that an arbitral award cannot be interfered with except on the grounds as set out in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter “the Act”), inter alia, impugning the arbitral award dated 31.12.2017 (hereafter “the impugned award”) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted of a sole arbitrator, Justice V.B Gupta (Retired), (hereafter “the Arbitral Tribunal”).

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in respect of the “Franchise Agreement” dated 17.08.2006 (hereafter “the Agreement”) and the “Settlement Agreement” dated 27.02.2013 (hereafter “the Settlement Agreement”).

3. The disputes between the parties relate to the price payable by the petitioner for the goods supplied by the respondent (Reebok). Reebok claimed that certain amounts were due to it under the Franchise Agreement and in order to settle the same, the parties had entered into the Settlement Agreement, in terms of which the parties had agreed that an amount of Rs.1,18,73,851/- was payable by the petitioner to Reebok .

4. The principal controversy raised before the Arbitral Tribunal was in respect of the validity of the Settlement Agreement as the petitioner claimed that it was without consideration and free consent. Reebok contested the aforesaid claim and insisted that the Settlement Agreement was entered into by the petitioner with free consent and with the view to settle the dues owed by the petitioner. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the petitioner was unable to discharge the burden of establishing that the Settlement Agreement was invalid and accordingly entered an award in favour of Reebok for sum of Rs.1,18,73,851/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.02.2013 till realization. The counter claim raised by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned award principally on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal – formed to adjudicate the disputes referred to the Arbitral Tribunal – failed to consider the disputes raised by the petitioner in respect of the Agreement. It is also contended that the Arbitral Tribunal had grossly erred in not appreciating that the Settlement Agreement was without any consideration as observed by this Court in the order dated 22.09.2016 passed in CS(COMM) 245/2016 captioned M/s Reebok India Company v. C.A. Ramesh Babu.

5. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are as under:-

5.1 Reebok International Ltd. is a company having its principal office in Lancaster, England and is, inter alia, engaged in manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of footwear, apparel, bags, accessories and other related products. Reebok (the respondent herein) is a company incorporated in India and has been appointed as an exclusive distributor for products sold under various trademarks owned by the Rebook Group (Reebok Trademarks).

5.2 On 17.08.2006, the petitioner and Reebok entered into the Agreement, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a retailer of the sports apparel and footwear, apparel, bags, sportswear accessories or any other related products bearing the Reebok trademarks. In terms of the Agreement, the petitioner was appointed as a Franchisee to operate retail outlet at the premises bearing no. 68/150/04, 9th Main Road, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore in the name and style “M/s Balaji Enterprises”.

5.3 In terms of the Agreement, Reebok agreed to make available the specified products for purchase by the petitioner in accordance with the Agreement. Reebok also agreed to provide marketing information, technical support with regard to visual merchandising as well as advise of its Architect with regard to the design of the retail outlet. The petitioner agreed to market the specified products and further agreed to refrain from stocking or displaying, selling any other products of any other products. Thus, the petitioner was to purchase the specified product