Disposed

Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited v. Diagnosis Evaluation and Research Private Limited

Telangana HC24 Feb 2025ARBAPPL/310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Franchisee dispute over alleged violation of franchise agreement terms and trademark misuse. Applicant invoked the arbitration clause; respondent did not nominate an arbitrator despite notice. The High Court appointed Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram (Retd.) as sole arbitrator and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; application disposed of with no costs.

Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited Vs Diagnosis Evaluation… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 310 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

*ry]9!qrlt|,^{and Lifestyle Limiled,} !!-912tA,6.t5^{and616, tmperiatrowers,} Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana_ 500039, Rep. by its Authori2ed Signatory, Praveen Kumar.

¶9

...APPLICANT

¶10

AND

¶11

Diagnosis Evaluation and Research private Limited, Havinq its Office at Citv Centre, Fort Road, Kannur-670001, Kerata, Rep. by its Cnairmin, trrti. nOarii.i Zubair.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Arbitration Application under section 11€) & (6) of the Arbitration and concilation Act, 1996 R/w scheme for Appointment for Arbitrator, 1996 praying that the Hon'ble court may be to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section^{.l .l} (5) and^'1'1 (6) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 read with Rules and scheme under the Act to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the Applicant and the Respondent pursuant to the Franchise Agreement dated 07.02.2022 with costs.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sirnapelly pooja

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Arbitration Applicatiqn NS.3 lQ^qPQ211

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Arbitration Application is filed under Section I 1(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adj udicate thc claims and disputes between the applicant and the respondent pursuant to the Franchise Agreement da|ed 07 .O2.2022.

¶20

This Court on O3.O1.2O25 ordered notice to the respondent. Personal notice was also permitted. Today, when the mertter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has liled Memo of proof of service, u,herein it is cvident that notice was served on 1 l O L2O25. 3. The facts of the case are that, applicant lSa Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is pioneer in the f-reld of healthcare and operates a group of healthcare establishments rarging from hospitals, clinics, diagnostic centres etc., for over 20 years. It is submitted that appLicant has entered into a fralchise agreement u,ith the respondent on O 1.07.2004 which was

¶21

¶22

later renewed on non-exclusive basis on 03.11.2016 and on O7.O2.2O22. By way of this agreement, respondent expressed a desire to obtain right to establish and operate the said business in line with the terms and conditions put forth in the franchise agreement. Through this agreement, applicant had granted the respondent the franchisee to establish and operate "Apollo Clinic". It is further submitted that during the course of the business, the applicant noticed that respondent had violated several terms of the Franchisee Agreement as such the respondent violated Clause 1 I and 12 of Franchisee Agreement.

¶23

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent violated clause 7.3 of the Franchisee Agreement wherein respondent was required to disclose the correct revenue and pay the Operating License Fee (OLF). However, the respondent had opened competing businesses in 13 locations, without the applicant's knowledge or approval, while using the applicant's valuable brand name and have made unlawful gains by unauthorized use of the applicant's trademark. It is further submitted that respondent had wilfully infringed and

¶24

)

¶25

maiiciously misused the applicant's registered trademark. The applicant observed that respondent has sta_rted a competing business in the name and style of Apollo Medical Laboratorv' at the cost of the applicant,s business ald iong standing reputation. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent has opened 13 centres actively operating rn the name and style of Apollo Medical Laboratory' u'hile misusing the name and trademark of the applicant and accordingly disputes arose between the parties. Accordingl-r' the applicant has filed the present application.

¶26

Clause 17 .2 of Fralchisee Agreement dated 07 .O2.2022 is extracted hereunder:

¶27

17.2. AU dispute, differences, .controuersg or claims aising out of or in relation to, this Agreement, including the ualiditg, existence and the interpretation hereof, the actiuities perforrned_ hereunder, or for the breach hereof, which cannot be satisfactorily resolued by mutual negotiation within thirtA pO) days of tssue of notice by a pat1A, shall be finally settled. und.er the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including onA statutory modifications,

¶28

¶29

amendments,^{Te-enactmentsthereof from timeto} time by^{sole Arbitratorappointed mutuallybg} the parties.^{Such arbitration shall be conducted} in Hgderabad,^{inEnglish' The costsof} arbitration^{shallbe borne equallg betu'teen the} parties."

¶30

Thereafter,^{applicant has issued notice to the} respondent^{on 27.O9'2O24invoking arbitrationclause ald} t' nominating^{their arbitrator'Respondentreplied to the said} notice on^{16.10.2024 and 01'1 l'2O24'however' has not} nominated^{their arbitrator-}

¶31

Z. foaay{,^{when the matter is taken up for hearing'} none appeared^{on behalf of the respondent'thoughnotice} wasserved.Thedisputesarousedbetweenthepartiesare governed by^clause17 '2^{of Franchisee Agreementdated} 07.O2.2O22^{and the partiesshall settle the sameunder the} Arbitration^{and ConciliationAct' 1996'}

¶32

Therefore,^{Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram (Retd')'} R/o.Plot No.68,^{Road No'71, Phase III' Jubilee Hills' Hyd -} 33, Mobile:^{8331010695, is appointedas sole arbitratorto} adjudicate^{the disputebetween the parties'} ,/

¶33

¶34

9 Parties sharl appear arong with a copy of this order

¶35

before the Arbitrator

¶36

Accordingly, the Arbitration Application 1S disposed of. No costs.

¶37

i1 Oflice to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator

¶38

Miscellar-reous petitions, pending, if any, shall stald

¶39

closed.

¶40

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 Sri Justice Challa Kodanda- lqm (Redt ), R/o. plot No. 68, Raod No. 71, Phase lll, Jubitee Hiils, Hyd-33, Mobite: 83310 i0695 [By Speiiat Messengerl'

¶45

[Along^{with the Copy of tvlaterial} Affidavit and^papers]

¶46

One CC to Sri Sirnapelly Pooja, Advocate [OpUC]

¶47

Two CD Copies

VH/gh

Ya-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2410212025

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.310 of 2024

¶55

rv{ 6 STAI(
(
r) 18 IIAB 2025 )
L,
. ---:-L, -

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶57

6-dnA
w t'
r€6 a

Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited v. Diagnosis Evaluation and Research Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited v. Diagnosis Evaluation and Research Private Limited

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

Manuka Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Sudhir Shah, Vs M/s. Sahiti Constructions

A. Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Kaitha Yadaiah , Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Mahindra Residency Society Vs The State of Telangana

Arcom Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Telangana