TASHI RABSTAN
Supinder Kour – Appellant
Versus
MDN Edify Education Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the court below without touching the merits of the case dismissed the petition of appellant herein filed under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Before the court below, the petitioner-appellant herein was seeking to grant temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from appointing a new Master Franchisee of DRS-Kids for the UT of J&K in place of petitioner-appellant herein as well as from interfering in petitioner's functioning as Master Franchisee of DRS-Kids for whole of erstwhile State of J&K.
2. The facts-in-brief are that an agreement of franchisee dated 06.12.2007 was entered into between the petitioner and the DRS Vidya Samiti, a society incorporated under the Society Act, whereby, the appellant agreed to be appointed as franchisee of the DRS Vidya Samiti to establish and operate pre-school under the brand name "DRS Kids" within 3
Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd. and others
Enercon (India) Limited and others v. Enercon GMBH and another
Reliance Industries Limited and another v. Union of India
Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg Niedenthal v. Chhattisgarh Investment Ltd.
Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Airvisual Ltd.
Cobra CIPL vs. Chief Project Manager
Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kalsi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.; (2020) 0 Supreme (Del) 689
Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC
Brahmani River Pellets Limited vs. Kamachi Industries Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of exclusive jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings as per the specific provisions in the Master Franchise Agreement and the Ar....
Unilateral appointment of arbitrators is impermissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring independence and impartiality in arbitrator selection.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the court at the seat of arbitration has exclusive jurisdiction over all applications under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the designation of the seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at that seat, influencing the court's decision on juri....
Designation of the seat of arbitration must be clearly expressed; conflicting jurisdiction clauses require a harmonious construction favoring the overarching agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the seat of arbitration in determining the territorial jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The seat of arbitration clause, fixing the seat of arbitration at New Delhi, resulted in courts at New Delhi being exclusively competent to entertain petitions under the 1996 Act, in exercise of its ....
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction for the petitions lay in Delhi, and the respondent's unilateral appointment procedure for arbitrators was impermissible under the law.
The seat of arbitration, once agreed upon, confers exclusive jurisdiction to the designated court, preventing the invocation of other jurisdictions.
The designated seat of arbitration establishes exclusive jurisdiction for related applications, affirming that the Commercial Court in Ranchi has jurisdiction over Section 34 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.