Disposed

Accelerate Productx Ventures Private Limited v. Reejh Essentials

Delhi HC19 Jul 2024ARB.P./259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under a Franchise Agreement's arbitration clause. The unrepresented respondent did not appear despite service. Holding the respondent was avoiding arbitration, the court referred the disputes to DIAC for appointment of a sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Disputes referred to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator per Clause 23.2 of the Franchise Agreement.

Accelerate Productx Ventures Private Limited Vs Reejh Essentials — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~5

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 259/2024

¶4

ACCELERATE PRODUCTX VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav and Mr. Manan Popli, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

REEJH ESSENTIALS .....Respondent

¶7

Through: None

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL) % 19.07.2024

¶10

1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act), for reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent to arbitration.

¶11

2. Despite service of notice on the respondent by speed post as far back as in April 2024, there is no response. Nor has the respondent condescended to file reply to the petition.

¶12

3. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is deliberately absenting from these proceedings as he has been contesting Section 9 proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Commercial Judge in the Patiala House Courts.

¶13

4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent when the

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHARAN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶17

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 259/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

matter is called out.

¶20

5. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to await any further for the respondent to appear.

¶21

6. I have heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

7. The dispute arises out of a Franchise Agreement dated 22 March 2023, whereunder the respondent was appointed as a franchisee by the petitioner. Clause 23 of the Franchise Agreement deals with the dispute resolution and reads thus:

¶23

“23. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

¶24

23.1. The Parties shall use their best efforts to amicably resolve any dispute or difference, which may arise or may have arisen between the Parties with regard to any matter pertaining to or arising from or in connection to this Agreement including any question regarding its existence, validity, construction or termination.

¶25

23.2. If the Parties are unable to settle the dispute and/or difference referred to in Clause 22.1 either Party may submit the dispute to arbitration before Delhi International Arbitration Centre ("DIAC") to be decided by a sole Arbitrator appointed by DIAC. The venue and seat for the arbitration proceedings shall be at New Delhi, India and the proceedings shall be conducted in the English Language. The finding of the sole arbitrator shall be binding on the Parties and the succeeding Party shall be entitled to costs of the arbitration including but not limited to legal costs.”

¶26

8. It is clear that no specific pre-arbitral protocol is required to be followed by Clause 23 Franchise Agreement before a notice under Section 21 invoking arbitration, issued by one party, to the other.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Page 2 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶30

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 259/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶31

9. In the present case, the Section 21 notice was issued by the petitioner on 15 December 2023 and despatched by speed post to the respondent. The speed post endorsement states that the respondent had left the address without instructions. Mr. Amit Kumar points out that the Section 9 notice was received by the respondent at the very same address.

¶32

10. As such, prima facie it appears that the respondent is avoiding reference of the disputes to the arbitration.

¶33

11. In the circumstances, the Court has to step in and exercise jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶34

12. In accordance with the Clause 23.2 of the Franchisee Agreement, therefore, the disputes between the parties stand referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The DIAC would appoint a suitable Arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes. The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the DIAC. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC. The Arbitrator shall also file the requisite disclosure under Section 12 of the 1996 Act within a week of entering the arbitration.

¶35

13. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Page 3 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶39

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 259/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

¶40

14. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶42

JULY 19, 2024/ ns

¶43

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Page 4 of 4 By:CHANDRASHEKHARANHARI SHANKAR Signing Date: 22.0 7.2024 16:17:25

¶47

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT BARARIAARB.P. 259/2024 Signing Da te:2 2.07.2024 16:18:52

Accelerate Productx Ventures Private Limited v. Reejh Essentials

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Accelerate Productx Ventures Private Limited v. Reejh Essentials

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maruti Traders Vs Itron India Pvt. Ltd.

Tushar Chawla Vs Mr Tarun Sikka

M/S Irb Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India

J.S. Builder Vs Dr. Girish Gupta

Meghalaya Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.

Jitender Kumar Govt. Contractors & Engineers Vs Public Works Departments