JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 44, 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass an order that the Award dated February 11, 2016 be deemed to be a decree of this Court and pass a direction to enforce and execute the same as a decree in favour of the Petitioner as against Respondent along with the cost in entirety and costs of this Petition.)

1. This petition has been filed to enforce the foreign award dated 11th February, 2016.

2. The brief facts leading to file this Application is as follows:

2.a. The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner and the Respondent have entered a Franchisee Agreement dated March 31, 2006 referenced as #39997 for Respondent to open and operate a SUBWAY® restaurant at Nigiris Department Store. Similarly, another agreement dated October 23, 2007 to amend the Franchisee Agreement in part. As the dispute arose in respect of the terms of Contract a notice of default issued by the Petitioner on November 21, 2014 for terminating the contract, the matter was referred to Sole Arbitrator in terms of the Contract. The learned Arbitrator has passed Award dated February 11, 2016. Hence this Petition is filed for enforcement of the Foreign Award.

3. It is the contention of the Respondent in a counter, admitting the Franchisee Agreement between the parties and the Termination Notice issued by the Petitioner. It is the contention that the Respondent that she was regular in payment of royalty without any default and pleaded that though the restaurant opened by the Respondent running in almost satisfaction of the Petitioner. During 2014, the landlord for Store No.39997 had extended the Ground Floor by 4 feet, therefore it affected the visibility of the restaurant and the sales was drastically reduced. Further, as per Franchise Agreement store No.39907 was due for remodeling and the remodeling cost would be Rs.12,00,000/-. As the lease was expiring in a year, the Respondent decided to relocate the restaurant. However, there was a delay on the part of the Petitioner.

4. Be that as it may. As far as the Award is concerned, it is the contention of the Respondent, she filed written submissions along with documents to the Arbitral Tribunal. Further contention is that there is no notice of invocation on the basis of the agreement dated 31.03.2006. Even after the Award, termination of the Franchisee Agreement, the Respondent continued the restaurant. Though several allegations were raised the main contention is that the Award is result of fraud, the Arbitrator just accepted the proposed Award. Therefore, it is her contention that Foreign Award is result of fraud.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that the Petition is not maintainable as both parties are Indian and by virtue of definition under Section 2 (1)(f), the present Award is not a Foreign Award and hence cannot be enforced under Section under section 48 of the Act. It is further contention that the Award is against the public policy and vitiated by fraud. Further, the damages passed by the Arbitrator is against the provision of Contract Act. It is also her contention that the Award covers two different stores and there are two different Franchisee Agreements and the same were not amended by the other. It is further contention that the Arbitrator failed to consider the contention of the Respondent during the Arbitral Proceedings. In support of her submissions learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance of the following judgments:

1. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority [(2015) 4 SCC 136]

2. TDM Infrastructres Pvt. Ltd. v. UE Development India Private Ltd., [(2008) 14 SCC 271]

3. Addhar Mercantile Private Limited v. Shree Jagadamba Agrico Exports Pvt. Ltd., [2015 SCC Online Bom 7752]

4. Kiddie Academy Domestic Franchising vs. Faith Enterprice DC [Civil No.WDQ-07-0705]

6. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing fo