AMITA ACHARYA Vs. TATA TELE SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into a franchise agreement with opposite party-Tata Tele Services Limited (for short, 'TTSL') on 29.12.2006, which is admittedly still in force. The dispute arose with regard to nonpayment of the rent and franchisee fees to the petitioner. The petitioner thus sent notice dated 16.08.2016 to the opposite party for appointment of an Arbitrator under Article 19 of the agreement, which reads as under:

(2.) Since no reply to the said notice was received by the petitioner, she has filed this Arbitration petition praying for appointment of an Arbitrator.

(3.) Though the opposite party has put in appearance, but learned counsel for the opposite party states that the opposite party does not wish to file any counter affidavit, which submission has also been recorded in the order dated 03.11.2017. As such, from the record it is clear that the opposite party has neither given its reply to the notice issued by the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator nor has filed any counter affidavit.