The court emphasized that an elaborate enquiry into the maintainability of the claims sought to be agitated by the petitioner is not appropriate at the stage of proceedings under Section 11 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"], the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate claims raised by it against the respondent arising out of an agreement dated 03.10.2016, entitled "Master Franchise Agreement" [hereinafter, "MFA"].

A. Facts:

2. By way of the MFA, the petitioner was appointed as the "Master Franchisee" in respect of the trademark "KEVENTERS", which the respondent claimed to have the right to use, and for the purpose of selling milkshakes under "kiosk franchise model" in designated territories.

3. The detailed terms of the MFA are irrelevant for the purposes of the present petition. Suffice it to say that the MFA contains an arbitration clause in Clause 28. The arbitration clause provides for a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the franchisee [the petitioner herein], out of a panel of three people suggested by the franchisor [the respondent herein]. New Delhi has been designated as the place of arbitration. By virtue of Clause 30.2 of the MFA, Courts in Delhi have been vested with exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of the MFA.

4. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner addressed a notice dated 21.05.2019 to the respondent, whereby it inter alia invoked the arbitration clause and proposed the name of an arbitrator.^{1[Document P-5(colly) of the petitioner's list of documents.]} It claimed an amount of Rs. 5.93 crores from the respondent. In the said communication, reference was also made to an earlier notice dated 20.05.2019, in which it appears that the petitioner's claims were identified. However, that notice is not on record in these proceedings.

5. The respondent, through counsel, replied by a legal notice dated 28.05.2019 disputing the petitioner's contentions and also making allegations of breach against the petitioner. [Ibid] Three names were proposed, from which the petitioner was called upon to select the arbitrator. The petitioner, through counsel, responded by a letter dated 09.06.2019, asserting its own choice of arbitrator.^{2[Document-4 in the respondent's list of additional documents.]}

6. By a communication dated 14.06.2019, learned counsel for the respondent once again called upon the petitioner to select one of the three names suggested by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by his reply dated 21.06.2019, again disputed the respondent's contentions.

7. In these circumstances, the respondent filed ARB.P. 474/2019 before this Court for appointment of an arbitrator "for adjudication of the disputes between the parties".^{3[Prayer Clause (a) in ARB. P. 474/2019.]}

8. By an order dated 26.07.2019, the petition was disposed of in the presence of learned counsel for both sides. The order reads as follows^{4[Document P-6 of the petitioner's list of documents. Document P-6 of the petitioner's list of documents.]} :

"This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Master Franchises Agreement dated 03.10.2016 executed between the parties. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties is contained in Clause 28 of the Agreement.

Clause 28.2 of the Agreement provides for procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator.

As the parties could not agree on the appointment of an Arbitrator, the present petition has been filed.

Out of names proposed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, subject to disclosure under Section 12 of Act, the respondent has no objection on appointment of Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate as a Sole Arbitrator.

In view of the above, Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate (A1/212, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi, Mob. No.9811035392) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parti