Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Dispute arises out of an agreement styled 'Franchise Agreement dated 02.04.2011' (hereinafter 'said agreement' for brevity).

4. Said agreement was for a period of five years and under the said agreement, petitioner in instant OP as franchisor had given on franchise a holistic education imparting service with an emphasis on activity based learning and creative expression for children between the ages 1 ½ years and 6 years with teacher to student ratio of 1:20. It is not in dispute that vide said agreement, the aforesaid business (hereinafter referred to as 'running play schools') was given on franchise. The franchisor shall inter alia provide on-line curriculum manual and updates for the same by way of a package. It was also http://www.judis.nic.in agreed that franchisor petitioner shall provide continuing assistance to the franchisee (to be noted respondent in instant OP is franchisee) for running play schools.

5. The sum and substance of said agreement or the business model under the said agreement is to the effect that the play schools are to be run by the franchisee respondent in accordance with the curriculum provided and the fee collected from the children/students shall be directly paid to the account of franchisor petitioner, after which the franchisor shall pay out 73% of the fees so collected to the franchisee respondent. With regard to the balance 27%, while 20% is to be retained by the franchisor petitioner towards its share of profit, 7% is to be spent by the franchisor petitioner towards marketing and advertisement expenses.

8.Annamalai Chettiar Founder A-School Chettinad Foundation 603, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 005.'

10. It is not in dispute before this Court that 7th respondent is a Trust, which founded the franchisor petitioner company and that the 8th respondent is the founder and therefore, the prime mover qua franchisor petitioner.

13. Owing to the aforesaid scenario, the franchisee respondent issued a notice dated 28.09.2013 to the franchisor petitioner alleging that they have been left high and dry and the franchisee chose to invoke the arbitration clause. To be noted, the contents of the notice reveal that this may not qualify as a notice, receipt of which by the franchisor petitioner can be construed as the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 21 of A & C Act. In other words, from the contents of the http://www.judis.nic.in notice it cannot be construed that there is a request to refer the disputes to arbitration. There is only an expression of the intention to refer the disputes to arbitration. However, this matter may at best be left at this and it is not necessary to delve further into this aspect of the matter as this is not imperative for disposal of the instant OP owing to the grounds on which instant OP is predicated. Thereafter, franchisor petitioner ultimately terminated the said agreement on 01.03.2014. Sole Arbitrator, who constituted the AT was nominated by the franchisor petitioner and the franchisee respondent consented. Sole Arbitrator, a former Judge, so nominated by the franchisor petitioner and consented to by franchisee respondent entered upon reference on 13.05.2014.