BOWLOPEDIA RESTAURANTS INDIA LIMITED Vs. DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has applied under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim protection.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has raised objections of lack of jurisdiction. Since the respondent has raised the issue of jurisdiction, the respondent has been allowed to address the Court first.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that, the parties entered into a leave and license agreement dated July 11, 2019. He has referred to Clause 16.7 of the leave and license agreement dated July 11, 2019. He has submitted that, since the parties agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be at New Delhi, the Courts at New Delhi has exclusive jurisdiction to try, entertain and determine any proceeding under the Act of 1996. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the order dated November 23, 2017 passed by the Delhi High Court in Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2017 (Ramandeep Singh Taneja v. Crown Realty), (M/s. Devyani International Ltd. v. Siddhivinayak Developers and Builders,2017 SCCOnline 11156), the order dated February 7, 2018 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 529 of 2017 (M/s. N J Construction v. Ayursundra Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.) , the order dated January 21, 2020 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 334 of 2019 (Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. v. City Projects Pvt. Ltd.) , the order dated March 4, 2020 passed in Transfer Petition No. 3053 of 2019 (HCC v. NHPC) , the order dated July 6, 2020 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 662 of 2019 (Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Kalsi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) and the order dated December 10, 2012 passed in Civil Appeal 9307 of 2019 (BGS SGS Soma v. NHPC Ltd.) .