JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 06.10.2016, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, in Appeal No. 02/2016, the present writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“1. By issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the order dated 6th October 2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, be quashed and set aside and consequently the application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before Additional District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, may also be directed to be dismissed. Further, it may be declared that the court at Fatehpur Shekhawati does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by the non-petitioner.

2. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

FACTS/BACKGROUND:

2. The brief and necessary facts of the case, as per the record, are as follows:

2.1) That the petitioner-company is a manufacturer of motorcycles, mopeds and other two wheelers, having nationwide presence. For the purpose of providing effective after sales services and repairing of its manufactured vehicles, the company appoints Authorised Service Centre (for short “ASC”) of the company at various places. In this regard, the petitioner company appointed the respondent as an ASC of the petitioner-company in Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (Rajasthan). The ASC agreement (Annexure-1) was executed on 01.10.2008 at Hosur in Tamil Nadu. As per the terms of ASC agreement, the petitioner-company appointed the respondent as an ASC on a non-exclusive basis for a period of three years from the date of the agreement subject to renewal thereafter done by the petitioner-company at its discretion.

2.2) That as per Clause 22 of the ASC agreement, which provides for dispute resolution mechanism, the parties had to resolve their dispute through negotiation and in case the negotiation fails, then the parties can refer the matter to the sole arbitrator, who was to be appointed by the Managing Director of the petitioner-company as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1996”).

2.3) That as per Clause 22.4(c) of the ASC agreement, the venue of the arbitration was to be in Hosur in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further, as per Clause 21 of the ASC agreement, the parties mutually consented that Courts at Hosur shall have the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter or dispute arising between them in relation to the ASC agreement.

2.4) That on account of some purported deficiencies in services by the respondent, the petitioner-company exercised its discretion, provided under Clause 15.1 of the ASC agreement, to not renew the agreement after the completion of period of three years. On 30.09.2011, the ASC agreement came to an end due to efflux of time and the agreement was not renewed.

2.5) Being aggrieved by the non renewal, the respondent sent a letter dated 09.10.2012 to the petitioner-company. The said letter was treated by the petitioner-company as claim statement and an arbitrator was appointed by the petitioner-company. The said arbitrator, vide order dated 12.12.2012, shifted the venue from Hosur to Bangalore (Karnataka) on the request of the petitioner-company and fixed the procedure to be followed by in the arbitration proceedings, without even issuing notices to the respondent. Thereafter, when the respondent came to know about the order dated 12.12.2012, the respondent filed a recall application, which was allowed vide order dated 05.04.2013 and the order dated 12.12.2012 was recalled. Further, the said arbitrator recused himself and withdrew from the arbitrat