RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGER MR. MAYANK K. MALIK Vs. VALLEY VIEW TRADING PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS (BHASKAR PRAKASH AND MRS. RENU PRASAD) AND MR. BHASKAR PRAKASH S/O DR. BRAHMANAND PRASAD DIRECTOR VALLY VIEW TRADING PV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a company registered under the Companies Act. The claim of the petitioner -Company is that it is the largest manufacturer of gold jewellery and gold products in the world. The company sells guaranteed and exclusive gold jewellery through its retail show rooms under the brand name "M/s. Laabh Jewellers" and "M/s. Shubh Jewellers". The petitioner has established several retail jewellery showrooms across the country, under franchisee arrangement and the respondents are such franchisees. The said franchise agreement is reduced in writing on 1.2.2008. It appears certain dispute has arisen between the petitioner as well as the respondents in respect of the transaction relating to the franchise agreement. Hence the petitioner has invoked the arbitral clause in the franchise agreement and accordingly issued a notice to the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents has been returned with postal endorsement indicating that either the "Respondents were not available" or "The premises locked". Hence the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) ON notice, the respondents have entered appearance and have filed statement of objections to the petition.

(3.) MR . Sanjeev Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, questions the maintainability of the petition itself, inasmuch as notice as contemplated under the Act is not served on the respondents. He further submits that a suit has already been filed by the respondents before the Civil Court at Patna, claiming certain reliefs. He further submits that the petitioner has entered appearance in that suit and has filed written statement. But however, it has not taken up a contention regarding the maintainability of the suit having regard to the arbitral clause.