Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Per contra, Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the Joint Venture Agreement and the franchisee agreement got superseded by the Revenue Sharing Agreement and therefore the invocation of the arbitration clause under the terms of the Revenue Sharing Agreement is correct. This agreement contemplates the disputes to be decided by a sole arbitrator. He http://www.judis.nic.in would further contend that the notice had been issued by the arbitrator to the address which has been given by the petitioner herein and therefore the argument that the sole arbitrator had not taken steps to serve the petitioner is absolutely unfounded. He would further submit that the ultimate statement of account had been mailed to the petitioner along with the claim statement. He would also submit that the petitioner who was in direct contact with the various customers had received payments from the customers but had failed to remit the same into the account within the agreed time of 72 hours and in many cases the amounts were not at all collected by the petitioner herein.

This is clearly in violation of the terms of Section 34 (2) (v) of the Act.

(d) The petitioner has lost its right to appoint an arbitrator of their choice since the disputes have been clubbed and the http://www.judis.nic.in invocation made under the Revenue Sharing agreement.

(e) The amount claimed even according to the claimant is the due towards all the three agreements and not the outstanding only under the Revenue Sharing agreement. Therefore, considering the fact that each of the agreement stood independent of the other, the clubbing of the three agreements into one was not maintainable.