ADITYA TELEVENTURES, SALES AND SERVICE FRANCHISEE OF HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED Vs. HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this petition seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(2.) PETITIONER is proprietor and owner of M/s Aditya Televentures. Petitioner-firm is appointed as Sales & Service Franchisee of Hutchison Essar Cellular Limited for a period of five years. The original Company Hutchison Essar Cellular Limited is taken over by Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited along with all business liabilities. Petitioner, therefore, after seeking amendment to the petition, sought leave to add newly constituted Company i.e. Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited as Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, in view of taking over of entire business of the erstwhile Company, is responsible to meet the contentions raised in the petition.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have caused appearance in response to the service of notice. Respondent No.2 has opposed the petition by filing an affidavit-in-reply. It is contended by the Respondent that firstly, the Court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as the Court at Pune shall have jurisdiction, as has been agreed upon by the parties. It is contended that clause 67 of the franchisee agreement provides that the jurisdiction to deal with any dispute shall vest with the Court at Pune and as such, the application before Aurangabad Bench would not be entertainable. It is further contended by the Respondent that 'In-house procedure' for redressal of grievances is provided in terms of clause 64 of the agreement and officers of the Company, namely Head, Finance, Head, Customer Service, Head Channel Sales and Head, Franchisee would be required to take decision with the approval of Chief Operating Officer, which would bind all the parties concerned. It is also contended by the Respondent in reply affidavit that the agreement is entered into at Pune and not at Aurangabad and as such, the Court at Pune shall have jurisdiction, as has been agreed upon by the parties. It is also further contended that unless the procedure contemplated by Section 64 is followed, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief under clause 67. Respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.