2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42422
- 1 -
CMP No. 161 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CIVIL MISC PETITION NO.161 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
M/S KAR CARE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
AT NO.1 AND 2, VAISHNAVI LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGLAURU-560 097
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA RAO.P
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH AND SRI. VINAYAKA RAO, ADVOCATES)
AND:
M/S 3M INDIA LIMITED
REGD OFFICE, PLOT NOL.48-51
ELECTRONICS CITY
HOSUR ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 100
ALSO AT:
CORPORATE OFFICE
CONCORDE BLOCK, UB CITY
24, VITTALMALLYA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
&RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. USHA.L, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHUJATH AHMED, ADVOCATE)
THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT
A
SOLE
ARBITRATOR
TO
RESOLVE
THE
DISPUTES
AND
OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DATED
06/12/2018 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Digitally
signed by
POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
CMP No. 161 of 2021
THIS CMP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
1.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
<To appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes
and outstanding issues between the parties in
accordance with the provisions of the Franchise
Agreement dated 06/12/2018 and in accordance
with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the
interest of justice=.
2.
The petitioner claims that the petitioner had entered
into an agreement dated 06.12.2018 with the
respondent, which is governed by an arbitration
clause in terms of Article 32 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Article 32
APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
1. This agreement and the rights and obligations of the
Parties
hereunder
shall
be
construed
and
interpreted in accordance with Indian substantive
and procedural laws, applicable to Agreements
made and to be performed entirely therein. Subject
to Article 32(2), the courts at Bengaluru shall have
the jurisdiction over disputes and differences arising
out of this Agreement.
2. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve
any dispute, difference or claim arising out of or in
relation
to
this
Agreement
through
mutual
discussion. In case it is not resolved within 30 days
- 3 -
from receipt of the written notice (setting out the
dispute or claim) by the other part, the complaining
party may issue a notice of reference, invoking
settlement of such dispute through arbitration.
Arbitration: All disputes and differences arising
between the parties hereto as also between the
Franchisor and the Franchisee, including any dispute
or difference in regard to the existence, validity,
interpretation,
breach
or
termination
of
this
Agreement), or in regard to any claim of one party
against the other or in regard to the rights and
obligations of any party or parties under this
contract or otherwise shall be referred to under the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 or its modifications thereof absolutely and
fully. The parties hereby agree that all disputes
shall be referred to under absolutely and fully. The
Parties hereby agree that all disputes shall be
referred to the sole arbitrator to be nominated by
Franchisor. The sole arbitrator shall have summary
powers and shall be bond to give reasons for his
holdings. The decision of arbitrator shall be final and
binding on both the Parties. The seat and venue of
Arbitration shall be shall be Bangalore. English shall
be the language of the arbitral proceedings.
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as
preventing either Party from seeing appropriate
interim
relief(s)
in
any
competent
court
in
Bangalore. It is made clear that Bangalore courts
would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all
petitions from either Party seeking appropriate
interim relief(s) and challenge to the arbitral award.
3.
The disputes having been arisen, the petitioner had
invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated
21.12.2020 and nominated its arbitrator. Despite
the same being served, no reply was received.
- 4 -
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for
the aforesaid reliefs.
4.
Notice having been ordered, the respondent has
entered appearance and filed its Statement of
Objections contending that the agreement relied
upon by the petitioner is superseded by another
agreement dated 31.12.2018.
5.
On enquiry whether there is any material difference
from earlier agreement produced by the petitioner,
learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits
that there is no such difference as regards the
arbitration clause but however submits that as
regards the other clauses there may be slight
differences. The arbitration clause in the agreement
produced by the respondent dated 31.12.2018 at
Clause 32 reads as under:-
Article 32
APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
1. This agreement and the rights and obligations of the
Parties hereunder shall be construed and interpr