Madras High Court
Chai Waale Trades Private Limited vs Mrs. Shraddha Nishant Shelat on 28 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.No. 89 of 2020
and
O.A.Nos. 142 to 145 of 2021
and
A.No.1860 of 2021
Chai Waale Trades Private Limited
Represented by its Managing Director
Having its registered office at
No.29, Chowkani Towers, 2nd Floor,
Whites Lane, Off Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. .. Plaintiff
..vs..
1. Mrs. Shraddha Nishant Shelat
2. Mr.Jobin Joy
3. Mrs. Amulu H
4. Mr. Harinath M.G ...Defendants
Prayer:Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule I of Madras High Court
O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
and Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying for the
following:
a) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1 st &
the 2nd Defendants, either directly or indirectly, from carrying out any
other business like that of the Plaintiff in the Perambur Outlet or within
2 Kms from the Perambur outlet for a period of 2 years from the date of
filing the suit;
http://www.judis.nic.in
b) Pass an order for recovery of Rs.94,051/- towards the
2
amount payable by the 1st & 2nd Defendants with interest at the rate of
18% p.a
c) directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,00,001/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of
the suit till the date of realization of the amount towards damages
suffered by the Plaintiff due to the acts done by the 1st & 2nd Defendants.
d) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 3 rd &
the 4th Defendants from permitting any other third parties to operate any
business like that of the Plaintiff in his outlet for a period of 2 years from
the date of filling the suit;
e) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st &
2nd Defendants from operating a tea store at the Perambur Outlet premises
using the FSSAI license of the Plaintiff.
f) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1 st &
the 2nd Defendants from passing any defamatory statements about the
Plaintiff.
g) costs of the suit may be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant.
For Plaintiff : Mr.G.Kalyan Jhabakh
For Defendant : Mr.Suchit Anant Palande for D1 and
D2
Mr.Prakash Goklaney for D3 and D4
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the plaintiff alleging violation of the
Franchise agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendants 1
and 2 and infringement of the trademark.
2. Pending suit, this Court has granted an order of interim
http://www.judis.nic.in
injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from running the business
unlawfully using the FSSAI license in the name of the plaintiff.
3. The defendants 1 and 2 had taken out an application to refer
the matter for settlement through arbitration, since there is an arbitration
clause in the Franchise agreement dated 06.10.2020 entered between the
parties.
4. On hearing the learned counsels of the respective parties and
on perusing the clause in the Franchise Agreement dated 06.10.2020 and
the Rental Agreement dated 07.10.2020, this Court is of the view that the
dispute raised in the suit and other collateral issues are to be settled
between the parties as per the terms of the Franchise agreement, which
reads as below:
“ DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
Any dispute, difference or question
arising out of, in relation to this Agreement,
including any dispute as to the existence or
validity hereof, shall be first attempted to be
resolved by mutual discussions and
negotiations.
In case of failure by the parties to
resolve the dispute in the manner set out
above within 30 (thirty) days from the date
when the dispute arose, it shall be referred to
http://www.judis.nic.in and settled by arbitration to be conducted in
accordance with the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 or any subsequent
enactment or amendment thereto. The
arbitration will be conducted by a sole
arbitrator, who shall be appointed with the
mutual consent of the parties. The venue for
arbitration shall be Chennai, India, and the
proceedings will be conducted in English
language. The award given by the arbitrator
shall be deemed to be final and binding on
both the parties. Further, the arbitration
proceedings are to be conducted on a fast
track basis.”
5. Hence, this Court is of the view that the subject matter of the
suit cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the terms of Franchise
agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the
subsequent lease deed between the parties, the matter is bound to be
referred to arbitration.
6.Though there is no formal application under section 11(6) for
appointment of Arbitrator, taking note of the fact that now the parties
have agreed for appointing an Arbitrator and list of Arbitrators have been
furnished by the counsels, on perusing the list, this Court is of the view
that Dr.SSP.Darwesh, District Judge (Retd.,), Former V.C.,
Dr.Ambedkar Law University, residing at No.15/33, Sreenivasa
Street, Perambur, Chennai 600 011, Mobile No.7299767186, Email
http://www.judis.nic.in
[email protected], shall be appointed as sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the Franchise
Agreement dated 06.10.2020 followed by Rental Agreement dated
07.10.2020. The parties are agreeable to the said appointment.
7.The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be shared by parties
equally. The 50% of the remuneration and expenses to be borne by the
plaintiff and the balance 50% by the defendants. As far as the interim
relief granted, the same shall be in force till the first hearing of the
arbitration proceedings.
8. The civil suit is disposed of with the above direction. Since
the matter is disposed before framing of issues, the court fee paid shall be
refunded in accordance with law. The connected applications are closed.
28.04.2021
vri
http://www.judis.nic.in
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
Vri
C.S.No. 89 of 2020
and
O.A.Nos. 142 to 145 of 2021
and
A.No.1860 of 2021
28.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
