Madras High Court
Subway Systems India Private Limited vs Mr.Srinivsa A Chidhambaram on 24 June, 2021
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
O.P.No. 578 of 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
O.P.No. 578 of 2019
and O.A.No.111 of 2020
and A.Nos.741,743 and 744 of 2020
Subway Systems India Private Limited
Level 2, Elegance Mathura Road,
Jasola, New Delhi- 110025
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Jaganath Rao . . . Petitioner
Versus
Mr.Srinivsa A Chidhambaram
SUBWAY ® 63526
Alwarpet
No.58/98, Dr.Ranga Road
Mylapore
Chennai – 600 004 . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to declare that the award dated 22.10.2018 be deemed to
be a decree of this Hon'ble Court and direct the respondent to deposit an
amount of Rs.3,17,132.29/- from 22.10.2018 being the date of actual payment
and further direct the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- per day which as of
04 June 2019 amounts to Rs.33,75,000.00/- from 22.10.2018 being the date of
the Award towards unauthorized use of the Subway ® trade mark, trade names,
service marks and in any form of advertising and to return the Subway ®
Operations Manual, till the date of actual payment and further direct the
respondent to pay a sum of 2,150/- U.S.D being the costs incurred by the
Page No: 1 /6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.P.No. 578 of 2019
petitioner in the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Award dated
22.10.2018 along with an interest of 18% per anuum from the date of Award till
the date of actual payment.
For Petitioner : Mr.Adarsh Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.P.Saravanan
ORDER
This original petition has been filed under Sections 47 ad 49 of the Act to enforce the foreign award passed in favour of the applicant.
2.As the dispute arose between the parties in respect to the Franchise agreement dated 03.07.2014 as to the continuation operation of the Subway Restaurant, trade mark, the matter went to the arbitration. The learned Arbitrator was appointed by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR).
3. The learned Sole Arbitrator considered the matter after sending the notice to the respondent on analysing the entire claim of the petitioner and passed a foreign award on 22.10.2018.
Page No: 2 /6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No. 578 of 2019
4. Now the above award was put into enforcement before this Court.
5. The main contention of the respondent before this Court is that the foreign award is not enforceable since no notice of arbitration is sent to him. Except the above ground, no challenge whatsoever made as against the award. It is also to be noted that receipt of the award from the learned Arbitrator is not disputed in the counter. Though the counter is filed with the vague allegations, the only allegation is made with regard to the award is non service of the arbitration notice except that there was no other circumstances whatsoever pleaded in the counter.
6. It is to be noted that the party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made and the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof. Once those requirements have been complied by the party applying for enforcement, it is for the respondent to show that the award cannot be enforced on any of the conditions stipulated under Section 48 of the Page No: 3 /6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No. 578 of 2019 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Except pleading that no notice was served, there was no other circumstances pleaded by the respondent. Therefore, this Court will deal only with the allegation of non service of notice alone and the same is perused.
7. On perusal of the award, the learned Arbitrator has recorded in paragraph 7 of the award to the effect that the nature of service effected on the respondent. He has mentioned about the date of service and UPS tracking including the tracking number etc. to substantiate the above finding, on perusal of the proof filed in typed set, the same clearly shows that notice was received by the respondent and the delivery tracking number also mentioned in the award which is also found in the proof of delivery receipt.
8. Therefore contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that no notice of arbitration received by the respondent cannot be countenanced. In such view of the matter, this Court do not find any merits in the contention of the respondent.
Page No: 4 /6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No. 578 of 2019
9. Accordingly, foreign award passed by the Sole Arbitrator does not suffer any infirmity and the same is enforceable as the decree of the Court.
10. This original petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.
24.06.2021 msv Page No: 5 /6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No. 578 of 2019 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
msv O.P.No. 578 of 2019 and O.A.No.111 of 2020 and A.Nos.741,743 and 744 of 2020 24.06.2021 Page No: 6 /6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/