$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 1543/2025 KOLLI SUPER MARKET .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bikram Singh Patel with Aditya Bundela, Advs.

versus M/S GROCERY 4U RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Shukla, Mr. Aditya Shukla, Mr. Nilesh Tiwari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. This is a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner approached the respondent with the intention to establish a national franchise brand. The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 07.10.2024, whereby the petitioner was granted the right to establish and operate a franchise outlet under a Franchise Owned Franchise Operated model.

3. The said Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 12 which reads as under:-

“12 DISPUTE RESOLUTION a. That in the event of any dispute or difference arising out between the parties or otherwise relating to this Agreement, the Parties will endeavor to settle it amicably through mediation within 30 days of such differences / dispute having so arisen through the authorized representative of both parties.

b. That if the said dispute is not resolved through mediation, then the matter will be referred before Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Where both parties will represent themselves through their representative before the appointed arbitrator as per law in Delhi only.

c. That the Jurisdiction of Arbitration shall be at Delhi High Court or whichever convenient to company and the language of arbitration would be English.”

4. Since there were disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 01.04.2025 and thereafter filed the present petition.

5. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the pre-

arbitral mediation process has not been undertaken and hence, the petition is non-maintainable and premature.

6. In the present case, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide legal notice dated 01.04.2025 clearly bringing out the disputes between the parties.

7. In paragraph No. 23 of the said notice, the petitioner has clearly stated that all attempts for amicable resolution have failed and hence, the parties should be referred to arbitration. The paragraph No. 23 reads as under;

“23. That since all attempts of amicable resolve have failed, and you have disastrously failed to perform your contractual obligations despite repeated written and oral assurances, under my Client’s explicit authorisation, I hereby invoke Clause 12 (Dispute Resolution) of the Agreement, per Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

8. Despite the said notice being duly served on the respondent, the respondent did not ask for mediation or for an amicable solution.

9. It can also not be overlooked that even by legal notice dated

12.03.2025, the petitioner has made to attempt to resolve the matter amicably but no efforts were made on behalf of the respondent. paragraph No. 6 of the legal notice dated 12.03.2025, being relevant in that respect, reads as under “6. That despite my client’s repeated efforts to resolve the matter amicably, all attempts at mediation have been exhausted. My client and ger husband were repeatedly called upon to visit your Noida office under false assurances and empty promises of store inauguration.”

10. For the said reasons, prima facie, I am satisfied that the petitioner has duly complied with the terms of Clause No. 12 of the said Franchise Agreement.

11. I am satisfied that there exists a valid arbitration clause and there are disputes between the parties which need to be adjudicated through the arbitral mechanism.

12. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:-

i) Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal, Advocate (Mob. No. 7838794194)

is appointed as a S