Facts
The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement dated 22 February 2025 for operation of a café under a FOCO model.
Source reference: p.2–6The petitioner alleged that the respondent breached the agreement, including by withholding payments and interfering with the petitioner’s operational role.
Source reference: p.2–6The agreement’s Clause 20.2 provided for arbitration, with Bengaluru as the seat and venue, and contemplated appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Source reference: p.2–6After issuing a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner filed this petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Source reference: p.2–6The respondent had no objection to appointment and asked that the parties’ contentions be left open
Source reference: p.2–6Issues
1. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Franchise Agreement
Source reference: p.5–72. Whether the parties’ claims and contentions should be reserved for determination by the arbitral tribunal
Source reference: p.6–7Law Applied
Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provide the basis for court appointment of an arbitrator where the agreed appointment process does not result in appointment.
Source reference: p.2, 4–6Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon receipt of a request to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Source reference: p.2, 4–6Clause 20.2 of the Franchise Agreement required unresolved disputes to be referred to arbitration and provided for a mutually appointed sole arbitrator, with recourse to appointment under the Act if the parties failed to agree within 15 days.
Source reference: p.2, 4–6The Court cited no precedents
Source reference: p.2, 4–6Reasoning
The Court found that the Franchise Agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties and that the petitioner had invoked it by issuing a notice under Section 21.
Source reference: p.5–7Given the existence of the clause and the respondent’s lack of objection to appointment, the Court concluded that appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.
Source reference: p.5–7It left the substantive claims and contentions open for determination in arbitration
Source reference: p.5–7Holding
The petition was allowed.
The Court appointed retired District Judge Shri Rajmohan Srivatsava as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, under its rules.
Source reference: p.7–8All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 11 November 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
Source reference: p.7–8Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19962
Original Court PDF
M/S GOURMETA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDvsM/S PREMIER KAFE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
