- (1.) The petitioner seeks a reference of the disputes covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties, to arbitration. This request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been carried upon the petitioner's perceived demand for the appointment of an arbitrator being apparently left unattended to by the respondent.
(2.) The respondent is engaged in providing healthcare services including homoeopathic consultation, provisional diagnosis and therapy primarily for hair skin, arthritis and obesity related disorders. On August 7, 2007 the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent for being the respondent's franchisee in Siliguri. The petitioner has complained of the respondent having failed to provide logistic, technical and expert support to the Siliguri healthcare centre. The petitioner claims that he was exasperated and discontinued the franchise with effect from March 1, 2009. Disputes and differences have, indeed, arisen between the parties. The petitioner says that such disputes are covered by the arbitration agreement recorded in clause 14 of the franchise agreement of August 7, 2007: "14. JURISDICTION That place for the performance of obligations of the parties hereto is in Kolkata and the parties hereto expressly agree that if any dispute and/or disputes arise between the parties hereto than the dispute and/or disputes will refer to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 and accordingly, the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court at for that purpose." (Clause reproduced exactly as it appears in the agreement.) The petitioner says that he caused a letter to be issued to the respondent on October 22, 2009 wherein the demand for reference of the disputes to arbitration was also made. A copy of the letter appears as annexure "J" to the petition. Over the first three pages advocate for the petitioner detailed the instances of alleged breach committed by the respondent and particularised the several heads of claim adding up to an amount of Rs.83,57,837/-. At the secondlast paragraph of the letter issued by advocate representing the petitioner, the following assertion was made: "Despite notice you have failed and neglected to take any steps in the regard. As a consequence of such wrongful deed and conduct on your part our client is entitled to claim the loss and damages suffered by our client as enumerated hereinbefore. We therefore call upon you to pay within a period of two weeks the sum of Rs.83,57,837/-. In the event such payment is not received within the time stipulated, our client would in such event refer the dispute for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as mentioned in the Clause of the said "Franchisee Agreement". For the said purpose please treat this letter also as commencement of arbitration proceedings within the meaning of section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
(3.) It is evident that the respondent did not accede to the petitioner's demand. In a terse, one-paragraph reply of January 18, 2010, the respondent refuted the petitioner's claim and narrated its grievances against the petitioner.;