289 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

ARB-267-2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 ****

Dr. Sukhsagar Ratol ..... Petitioner Versus Dr. Tanya Mishra Dixit ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate Ms. Salina Chalana, Advocate Mr. Harit Narang, Advocate &

Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Unit Franchise Agreement dated 17.04.2024 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent wherein exists a valid arbitration clause i.e. Article 27 (4). He further submitted that the said clause provides that in case any dispute arises between the parties relating to performance or non- performance of the rights and obligations set forth herein or the breach, termination, invalidity or interpretation thereof, the same shall be referred for arbitration at Chandigarh in accordance with the Act. He further submitted that when the dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause and also proposed the name of an Arbitrator by issuing a legal notice dated 05.09.2024 to the respondent vide Annexure P-6 which has been sent through a registered post but the respondent refused to receive the same. It was thereafter again for the second time, another legal notice was issued to the respondent vide Annexure P-10 dated 18.03.2025 and this time, the respondent replied to the notice vide Annexure P-11 dated 06.04.2025 wherein it was so stated that the agreement is a draft template and nothing contained in the draft template shall be construed as legal advice and it was further stated in the reply that the arbitration clause can be invoked only when there is a valid contract between the parties although the same was signed by both the parties but it was not a valid contract because it was only a draft template and therefore, the respondent did not agree for the arbitration mechanism.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the aforesaid reasoning given by the respondent in the reply that the agreement (Annexure P-1) was merely a draft template, although signed by both the parties, is demolished in view of the fact that the respondent itself terminated the said Agreement by giving a notice to the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 by making reference to the aforesaid Agreement and in that notice (Annexure P-5), the respondent expressly referred to the Agreement dated 17.04.2024 and terminated it, while also mentioning various transactions between the parties. Therefore, now the respondent is estopped from taking such a plea that the aforesaid Agreement (Annexure P-1) was not binding upon the parties because it was only a draft template.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Supriya Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the present petition under Section 11 of the Act is not maintainable in view of the fact that when an Arbitrator is to be appointed under Section 11 of the Act, the Court has to see as to whether there exists a valid arbitration clause in the agreement or not. Since the aforesaid agreement which has been attached with the present petition vide Annexure P-1 although signed by both the parties was only a draft template, it was not binding upon the parties. Therefore, the clause of arbitration cannot be acted upon. In this regard, she referred to the opening pages of the aforesaid agreement vide Annexure P-1 in which it has been mentioned that it is a privileged and confidential draft for discussion purposes only, although last page of the agreement shows that it has been signed by both the parties on 17.