IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Hda Flavours Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Daddy`s Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb. A. (COMM.) 29 of 2023 & IA Nos.12437 of 2023, 12439 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
ARB - Business Transfer Agreement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition under Section 17 of the A&C Act, alleging that the respondent violated the Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) by continuing to operate a competing brand. The respondent terminated the BTA and disputes arose between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The Ld. Sole Arbitrator found that some prayers could not be acceded to at the Section 17 stage and restrained the respondent from interfering with the appellant's business. However, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator also restrained the appellant from creating new franchises or business agreements, which was challenged by the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged violation of the BTA by the respondent and the subsequent disputes between the parties. The court also addressed the appropriateness of restraining the appellant from creating new franchises or business agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The Ld. Sole Arbitrator's findings that the respondent cannot interfere with the appellant's business and the absence of an independent prayer seeking restraints against the appellant influenced the court's decision to set aside the restraint on creating new franchises or business agreements.
Final Decision: The court set aside the restraint on creating new franchises or business agreements, allowing it with prior approval of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and subject to further orders to safeguard the respondent's rights.
JUDGMENT
ARB. A. (COMM.) 29/2023
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2023, passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, disposing of the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "A&C Act"), filed on behalf of the appellant (the claimant in the arbitration proceedings).
2. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator was appointed by this court vide order dated 10.02.2023, at the joint request of the parties while considering a petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, filed on behalf of the appellant.
3. While appointing the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, this court directed that the said petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act would be placed before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act.
4. It is in the above background that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator disposing of the said application under Section 17 of the A&C Act.
5. The disputes between the parties have arisen in context of a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 29.01.2022, entered into between the parties.
6. Another agreement referred to as the "Consulting Agreement" dated 01.04.2022 was also executed between the parties; however, whether or not disputes under the said consulting agreement can be brought within the fold of arbitration is an aspect which has been left to be considered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and which remains to be finally adjudicated upon in the arbitral proceedings. This is also expressly noticed in the impugned order.
7. By virtue of the BTA dated 29.01.2022, the seller transferred to the buyer thereunder the "transferred undertaking" alongwith certain other attendant rights as specified therein. The said agreement defines "transferred undertaking" as under:
"1.1.39. "Transferred Undertaking" means the business undertaking of the Seller on a going concern basis as on the Accounts Date comprising their assets, rights, approvals, Liabilities, obligations, and employees as more particularly described below:
1.1.39.1. Assets;
1.1. 39.2. All rights, benefits and obligations under Assigned Contracts forming part of the Transferred Undertaking;
1.1.39.3. All Authorization (s) to the extent used in, or forming part of the Transferred Undertaking and which are permitted to be transferred in accordance with Applicable Laws and including original documents, related data, and correspondence in possession of the Seller;
1.1.39.4. All claims, rights, credits, causes of actions, defences, rights of set-off (including the right to sue) to the extent arising from, or related to the Transferred Undertaking;
1.1.39.5. The Current Liabilities, Trade Credits related to the Transferred Undertaking;
1.1.39.6. The Records related to the Transferred Undertaking;
1.1.39.7. All direct and indirect tax related statutory benefits, credits, exemptions, related to the Transferred Undertaking, as applicable;
1.1.39.8. All claims or benefits, in, to or under any express or implied warranties from suppliers of goods or services related to the Transferred Undertaking;
1.1.39.9. Any other assets and liabilities as the Seller and the Purchaser mutually agree in writing."
8. Further, the BTA contains the following relevant stipulation:
"2. TRANSFER OF TRANSFERRED UNDERTAKING
2.1 Subject to the fulfilment or waiver of the conditions set out in this Agreement and the receipt of the Purchase Consideration as specified in Clause 5 below, the Seller hereby agrees to sell, transfer, convey, assign and deliver, as the case may be, on an as - is -where-is basis to the Buyer and the Buyer shall, relying on the representations and warranties provided by the Seller in this Agreement, purchase, acquire and accept, as the case may be, from the Seller, free from Encumbrances in each case with effect from the Accounts Date, the Transferred Undertaking and legal and beneficial title to the following:
2.1.1. The benefit of any amount to which the Seller is entitled from a Person (including, without limitation, an insurer) in r
The court emphasized the need for specific prayers or applications when considering restraints against parties and upheld the principle of safeguarding the rights of both parties in arbitration proce....
The enforceability of a negative covenant in a Franchise Agreement is determined by the nature of the shared sensitive and confidential information, and the court emphasized the prima facie nature of....
The court emphasized the arbitrability of certain disputes and the grant of injunctions based on a prima facie case of unauthorized trademark use.
Upon termination of agreements, the respondent had no right to use the brand/marks, and the petitioners were within their rights to seek an injunction. Delay in approaching the court did not defeat t....
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
A party seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act must demonstrate a manifest intention to invoke arbitration proceedings, which was not established by the petition....
The court ruled that failure to initiate arbitration proceedings within 90 days of an interim order vacates such order, impacting the validity of injunction applications.
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.