M/S Aravind Life Style Brands Limited Vs M/S Adarsh Agencies

M/S ARAVIND LIFE STYLE BRANDS LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE: DU PARC TRINITY 8^TH FLOOR, 17, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI MOHAMMAD ILIYAS S/O. HAZI SERVER MOHAMMAD. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHENDRA B. S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

M/S ADARSH AGENCIES A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REGISTERED OFFICE AT SULOCHAN NIWAS, PLOT NO.460 PROFESSOR PADA, CUTTACK ODISHA 753003. ALSO AT M/S, ADARSH AGENCIES REGISTERED OFFICE AT SULOCHAN NIWAS, PLOT NO.460 PROFESSOR PADA, CUTTACK ODISHA, 753003. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. BISWAKALYAN SWAIN.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 10.09.2026)

¶16

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶17

2 -

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:50644 CMP No. 541 of 2025

¶20

CNR: KAHC010608702025

¶21

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996., PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO CLAUSE 16 OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DATED 20.08.2018 I.E. ANNEXURE A OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPOINT ANYONE AS THE ARBITRATOR AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS THAT HIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the

¶26

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent under the Franchise Agreement dated 20.08.2018, particularly in terms of Clause 16 thereof, produced at Annexure-A.

¶27

The petitioner and the respondent entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 20.08.2018 at Bengaluru, under which the respondent agreed to purchase, sell,

¶28

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:50644 CMP No. 541 of 2025

¶31

3 -

¶32

CNR: KAHC010608702025

¶33

stock and display apparels and accessories of the “US POLO Assn” brand. Pursuant thereto, the respondent purchased stocks from the petitioner, against which various invoices were raised. Though the stocks were duly received, an amount of Rs.36,95,797/remained outstanding. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties in relation to the said Franchise Agreement.

¶34

The Franchise Agreement contains an arbitration clause, namely, Clause 16, which reads as under:

¶35

“16. ARBITRATION:

¶36

In the event of any dispute, difference, claim or question arising out of or in relation to or in connection with the agreement touching any matter during the continuance of this Agreement or after termination thereof, such disputes or difference shall be referred to Arbitration by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Company, to be conducted as per The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of the Arbitration shall be Bangalore.”

¶37

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶38

4 -

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:50644 CMP No. 541 of 2025

¶41

CNR: KAHC010608702025

¶42

As the Franchise Agreement provides for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, the petitioner issued a notice dated 26.06.2025, vide Annexure-C, to the respondent under Section 21 of the Act, invoking the arbitration clause. The said notice was also sent by email, as per Annexure-E. The respondent has submitted a reply dated 20.08.2025 as per Annexure-F. Being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶43

Notice issued by this Court has been duly served upon the respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the service of notice to the respondents was held sufficient.

¶44

In view of the above, and having regard to the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the Franchise Agreement, this Court is of the opinion that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, the following:

¶45

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶46

5 -

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:50644 CMP No. 541 of 2025

¶49

CNR: KAHC010608702025

¶50

ORDER

¶51

a) Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed .

¶52

b) Sri S.N.Kempagoudar, Retired District Judge i s appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case to arbitrate the disputes between the parties at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶53

c) All the claims and contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶54

d) Registry is directed to communicate this order via E-mail to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, and also to the learned Sole Arbitrator.

¶55

e) Registry is directed to return all the original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶56

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:50644 CMP No. 541 of 2025

¶59

6 -

¶60

CNR: KAHC010608702025

¶61

f) Parties are directed to appear before the Director, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru, on 13.10.2026 at 11:30 a.m.

¶62

Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

¶63

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶64

HA

¶65

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11

M/S Aravind Life Style Brands Limited v. M/S Adarsh Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aravind Life Style Brands Limited v. M/S Adarsh Agencies

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