- (1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19th November, 2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Rajkot passed below Exhibit -39 in Special Civil Suit No.188 of 2014, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 6 (original plaintiffs) and restrained the petitioners herein from prosecuting and/or proceeding with and/or continuing and/or taking any steps in the following three arbitral proceedings: [1] Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution Case No.300305 2014 Montblanc Simple GmbH .. Claimant v/s [1] Entrack International Trading Pvt. Ltd. [2] Mr. Dilip Doshi .. Respondents [2] Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution Case No.300306 2014 Montblanc Simple GmbH .. Claimant v/s Entrack International Trading Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent [3] Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution Case No.300307 2014 Montblanc Simple GmbH .. Claimant v/s Entrack International Trading Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent
(2.) THE petitioners and the respondents No.7 to 9 are part of Richemont Group of Companies which are, inter alia, involved in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, selling (directly and indirectly), writing instruments, writing accessories, leather goods, watches and other luxury products under the trademark "Montblanc" along with other well known trademarks owned by the Richemont Group worldwide.
(3.) IN the year 1991, the first petitioner entered into a distribution agreement with Entrack Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its registered office in London. Entrack London was appointed as the exclusive distributor of first petitioner for Montblanc products in India. In the year 1997, due to diversification of the Montblanc brand into various product categories (watches, jewelry, fragrance and eyewear), the three new distribution agreements were signed between the first petitioner and Entrack London (for writing instruments, leather goods and jewelry), and the second petitioner and Entrack London (for watches). In the year 2007, the second respondent, the promoter of Entrack London, decided to entrust his Indian Company viz., the first respondent, with the distribution of Montblanc products. Pursuant thereto, on 1st April, 2007, the first petitioner and the first respondent entered into a Distribution Agreement whereby, the first respondent was given the right to distribute certain other "Montblanc" branded products in India as a wholesaler. (The above referred agreement is hereinafter referred to as "the First Distribution Agreement"). Thereafter, a separate Distribution Agreement came to be entered into between the second petitioner and the first respondent on 1st April, 2007 whereby, the first respondent was given the right to distribute certain other "Montblanc" branded products in India as a wholesaler. (The above referred agreement is hereinafter referred to as "the Second Distribution Agreement"). Clause 10.7 of each of the above Distribution Agreements provides for Swiss law as the governing law and arbitration in accordance with the Swiss Arbitration Rules in Geneva, Switzerland in case of any dispute between the parties. During the period from 1997 till 2014, the first respondent and the second respondent also entered into fourteen Franchise Agreements with the first petitioner with regard to "Montblanc" boutiques at specified locations across India. Clause 20 of each of the Franchise Agreements provides for Swiss law as the governing law and arbitration in accordance with the Swiss Arbitration Rules in Geneva, Switzerland in case of any dispute between the parties.;