PURE SPIRITS Vs. RAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he appellants have filed the present appeal under Sec. 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] impugning an ex parte order dated 06. 02. 2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH- 84) [Commercial Court] in COM. AA 46/2026. The respondent has filed the said petition under Sec. 9 of the A&C Act, seeking interim measures of protection. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has restrained the appellants from changing the brand name of 'Playboy' used at the current venue at 'The Hyatt Regency', Kolkata, JA-1, JA Block, Sector 3, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal. Additionally, the learned commercial court has restrained the appellants from operating, withdrawing, transferring or otherwise dealing with the specific bank accounts bearing bank account Nos. 73610000209990 and 09090200001637 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Barbari Road Branch, Guwahati and the current bank account bearing No. 110305002235 maintained with ICICI Bank, Salt Lake Sector-III Branch, Kolkata.

(2.) It is clear from the above that the import of the impugned order is very wide and has the propensity to bring the business of the appellants to a complete stop.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits the appellant firm is a sub-franchise of the respondent, who claims to be a franchisee of the brand 'Playboy' under a Master Franchise Agreement. He submits that it is now discovered that the Master Franchise Agreement may not be operative and there is a serious dispute whether the respondent - company is a franchisee of the proprietor of the brand. He submits that the respondent also wears another hat of being a partner of the appellant firm. The respondent claims 7% of the gross proceeds as royalty fee, which works out to approximately '12 to 13 lakhs per month. He submits that the respondent has also entered into agreements with other parties under which the said parties pay only approximately a sum of '6 lakhs per month. He submits that given the uncertainty involved in carrying on the business as a franchisee, the appellant is not willing to proceed with the said business. He submits that the appellants cannot be compelled to carry on a business, which they do not intend to.