SUPINDER KOUR Vs. MDN EDIFY EDUCATION PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the court below without touching the merits of the case dismissed the petition of appellant herein filed under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Before the court below, the petitioner-appellant herein was seeking to grant temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from appointing a new Master Franchisee of DRS-Kids for the UT of J&K in place of petitioner- appellant herein as well as from interfering in petitioner's functioning as Master Franchisee of DRS-Kids for whole of erstwhile State of J&K.

(2.) The facts-in-brief are that an agreement of franchisee dated 06.12.2007 was entered into between the petitioner and the DRS Vidya Samiti, a society incorporated under the Society Act, whereby, the appellant agreed to be appointed as franchisee of the DRS Vidya Samiti to establish and operate pre- school under the brand name 'DRS Kids' within 3 kms radius of Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant was appointed as the Master Franchisee by DRS Education Pvt. Ltd. vide contract dated 13.12.2008 vesting in petitioner the rights to identify potential areas for establishing new DRS Kids pre-schools within the whole erstwhile State of J&K. As per the agreement, the life of the master franchisee was fixed for 10 years from the date of agreement which was extendable for a further period on mutually agreed terms and conditions.

(3.) It is submitted that as a consequence of the efforts, money and goodwill so invested by the petitioner-appellant over the years, she was able to get as many as 14 franchisees in Jammu alone, thus generated a considerable amount of regular income in the shape of royalty for respondent No.1, inasmuch as the respondent No.2 would take home 50% of the franchisee fee collected from the schools, as also a royalty from the tuition fees collected from all the schools as per the Master Franchisee Agreement. It is also submitted that petitioner also paid an amount of rupees five lacs as one time Master Franchisee fee.