The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement, in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer; Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint Mrs.R.J.Radhika, Advocate, High Court, Madras as sole arbitrator on behalf of the parties to resolve the dispute in terms of the Franchise Agreement dated 25.02.2019 between the petitioner and the respondents.)

1. This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.

2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 24.08.2022, which reads as follows:

'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 10.08.2022 under Section 11(5) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] with a prayer for appointment of sole Arbitrator.

2. Mr.Vigneshwar Elango, learned counsel on record for two petitioners submits that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on clause 14.2 in an 'agreement captioned 'FRANCHISE AGREEMENT' and dated 25.02.2019' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Clause 14.2 of primary contract may have to be read along with clause 14.1. Both sub-clauses are slotted under clause 14 captioned 'JURISDICTION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION' which reads as follows:

14. JURISDICTION & DISPUTE RESOLTUION'

14.1. The Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Indian and subject to Clause 14.2 below, the Parties shall submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of Courts in Chennai.

14.2. In the event of any dispute or difference between the Parties hereto, whether arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, then either Party shall give to the other Party a notice in writing of such dispute or difference and the same shall be settled at the first instance, by arbitration in Chennai, by a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the both the Parties herein within a period of 30 (thirty) days from notice of dispute. If the Parties fail to appoint a sole arbitrator within the given time, the arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modification or substitution thereof ("Arbitration Act"). The Parties agree that the rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall subsist and continue till the final determination of the dispute by the arbitrator or by a Curt of law as specified under Clause 14.1 hereinabove.'

3. Aforementioned clauses serve as arbitration agreement between the parties i.e., 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act is learned counsel's say.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when the primary contract was operated, arbitrable disputes erupted between the parties inter alia touching upon alleged non-refund of about Rs.20 Lakhs money paid upfront for franchise arrangement which never took off. This Court considers it appropriate to not to express any opinion or dilate any further as this is a Section 11 legal drill.

5. Suffice to say that owing to eruption of arbitrable disputes, petitioners issued a 'notice dated 08.10.2021' [hereinafter 'trigger' notice for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] invoking arbitration agreement and suggesting the name of sole Arbitrator. Adverting to postal acknowledgment card which forms part of the case file, learned counsel submits that this trigger notice has been duly served on the respondent on 16.10.2021 but the respondent company has not chosen to send a reply. Though the respondent had not sent a reply, it promised to settle the matter and petitioners were waiting in the fond hope that the matter will get settled but that turned out to be a mirage necessitating the presentation of the captioned Arb OP in t