Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Impressed by the offer of the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent had originally appointed the petitioner as a franchisee and the franchisee agreement dated 19.01.2007 was entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Thereafter, http://www.judis.nic.in the two of them had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 01.06.2008. The agreement, would inter alia fix responsibility on the petitioner to collect the monthly instalments due under the respective loan cum Hypothecation agreement and remit the same to the 1st respondent within 72 hours of its collection. Thereafter on 01.03.2010, the petitioner and the 1st respondent had entered into a Revenue Sharing Agreement and the agreement would clearly set out that the rights and liabilities of the parties under the earlier agreements does not in any way stand affected by reason of the Revenue Sharing Agreement.

6. It was also the 1st respondent's case that despite collecting the instalments from various customers, the petitioner herein had not remitted the said sums to the 1st respondent and in some cases the remittance was belated though under the terms of the agreement the remittance had to be made within a period of 72 hours from the time of collection from the customers. The 1st respondent would further submit that under the agreement the petitioner was liable to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum in case he fails to remit the amounts to the 1st respondent as stipulated. On 20.11.2014, the 1st respondent had issued a legal notice to the claimant demanding settlement of a sum of Rs.3,40,24,988/-. The petitioner herein neither paid the outstanding nor did he respond to the notice. The 1st respondent therefore issued a final notice dated 20.12.2014 informing the petitioner about the appointment of the sole arbitrator. The 1st respondent in the claim statement would submit that the Claim Petition was being filed as per clause http://www.judis.nic.in 13 of the terms and conditions of the Revenue Sharing Agreement. However, the entire claim statement would proceed on the basis that the amounts were due under the Franchisee agreement/ JVP agreement/ Revenue Sharing Agreement.

25. Further, the constitution/composition of the arbitral tribunal is different in each of these agreements. The franchisee agreement and the Joint Venture Agreement contemplate a tribunal consisting of three members whereas the Revenue Sharing Agreement contemplated only a sole arbitrator and that too nominated by one party alone. The 1st respondent has by ignoring the terms of the arbitration clause in the Franchisee and Joint Venture agreements violated the agreed procedure of appointment. Further by clubbing the three agreements the petitioner's right to appoint one Arbitrator in respect of the Franchisee Agreement and the Joint Venture Agreement has been taken away from the petitioner. The award is therefore liable to be set aside in the light of the provisions of Section 34 (2) (v) of the Act.

http://www.judis.nic.in

26. The argument of the 1st respondent that all the three agreement emanates from a Principal Agreement and therefore covered by the judgement in Ameet Lalchand Shah and others, supra cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

In para 5 of the Claim statement the 1st respondent would contend as follows:

"The respondent's liablility under the franchisee agreement and Joint Venture Agreement are not affectd in any way by reason of the said Revenue Sharing agreement and still the respondent liable to pay the amount due in respect of the franchisee agreement and Joint Venture Agreement and the respondent is liable to perform the acts and deeds that are remaining to be carried out by the respondent by virtue of the terms and conditions of the franchisee agreement and Joint Venture Agreement."