O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 88/2020 Page 1 of 11

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 88/2020

MEDISPROUTS INDIA PVT LIMITED CIN

U93020KL2012PTC030297 A COMPANY

REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES

ACT & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through Mr Shinu J. Pillai, Advocate.

versus

M/S SILVER MAPLE HEALTHCARE

SERVICES (P) LTD CIN U85100DL2010PTC200694

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

COMPANIES ACT

..... Respondent

Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

[Hearing held through videoconferencing]

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section

32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‗the

Act‘), inter alia, impugning an order dated 27.11.2020, whereby an

application filed by the petitioners seeking termination of arbitral

proceedings in terms of Section 32(2)(c) of the Act was rejected along

with costs of ₹20,000/-. The petitioners also pray that orders be passed

2021:DHC:67

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 88/2020 Page 2 of 11

terminating the arbitral proceedings.

2.

The disputes between the parties arose in connection with a

Sub-Franchise Agreement dated 24.01.2012 entered into between

petitioner no. 1 and the respondent. In terms of the said agreement, the

respondent had granted petitioner no. 1 non-transferable and non-

assignable license to use the trademarks (DHI trademarks) for

specified products and for hair transplantation services, in the State of

Kerala.

3.

Petitioner no. 1 is a company and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are its

directors.

4.

The petitioners claim that petitioner no. 1 terminated the said

Sub-Franchise Agreement vide a letter dated 06.03.2019. The

respondent claims that it terminated the Sub-Franchise Agreement by

a letter dated 16.05.2019, citing various reasons including lapses in

health and safety standards.

5.

By a letter dated 04.06.2019, the respondent invoked the

Arbitration Agreement contained in the said Sub-Franchise Agreement

for adjudicating the disputes that had arisen between the parties. The

respondent also suggested names of two former judges of this Court to

be appointed as Arbitrators. The said proposal was declined by the

petitioners but subsequently, the parties constituted the Arbitral

Tribunal by the petitioner no.1 nominating Mr. MKS Menon,

Advocate and the respondent nominating Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate

as arbitrators. Justice Indermeet Kochhar was appointed as the

2021:DHC:67

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 88/2020 Page 3 of 11

presiding arbitrator.

6.

The respondent filed a Statement of Claim claiming a sum

aggregating ₹6,31,81,795/- along with interest from the petitioners.

The petitioners filed their response and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 made a

counter-claim aggregating ₹19,97,75,452.72 along with interest.

7.

The petitioners state that the respondent filed a criminal

complaint before the Safdarjung Police Station resulting in registration

of FIR No. 340/19. The petitioners have challenged the registration of

the said FIR in Crl. MC No. 516 of 2020, which is pending before this

Court. The petitioners also filed a criminal complaint which led to the

registration of FIR No. 107/2020 with the Ernakulam Town South

Police Station, Kerala.

8.

Thereafter, on 06.11.2020, the petitioners filed an application

before the Arbitral Tribunal praying that the arbitral proceedings be

terminated under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act. The said application was

dismissed by an impugned order dated 27.11.2020.

9.

The petitioners claim that the respondent had entered into the

Sub-Franchise Agreement by falsely representing to