SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top