IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.40 of 2007 Date of decision : October 4, 2010 TATA Teleservices Ltd. …Petitioners. Versus M/s Times Communications and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Datta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present Revision Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15th March, 2007 of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, copy Annexure P-6, whereby their application, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for referring the dispute raised by respondent No.1 M/s Times Communications in their suit, instituted in the aforesaid Court, has been dismissed, with the observation that when the agreement gives the right to the present petitioners to approach Civil Court for injunctive relief, such a right should be available to the plaintiff- respondent also. 2. Defendants-petitioners provide tele-services, through franchisees appointed by them. Plaintiff-respondent Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… M/s Times Communications was appointed as a franchisee. An agreement was executed, copy of which is Annexure P-1. As per this agreement, respondent No.1 was to provide services to customers and subscribers, on behalf of the defendants-petitioner, on certain terms and conditions. Petitioners reserved an absolute right to them to terminate the franchisee agreement, even without assigning any reason. The agreement also provided that in certain specific situations, franchisee could be terminated. Vide communication dated 6th December, 2006, copy Annexure P- 2, franchisee in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was terminated and a direction was given to it to hand over the entire material, data, details, accounts, addresses and names of customers, subscribers, etc. immediately. 3. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, praying for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the petitioners from terminating the franchisee. Notice was sent to the petitioners, who on appearance filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, pleading that the franchisee agreement, vide Article 24, provided for referring any dispute, difference, conflict or question, arising between the parties, to a named arbitrator and, therefore, the dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent in the suit be referred to arbitration. That application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent and it was alleged that vide Article 20 of …3… the agreement, parties were free to approach the Court for injunctive relief. Trial Court has accepted plaintiff’s- respondent’s plea and dismissed the application moved by the petitioners, vide impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Article 20, which according to the trial Court gives the plaintiff-respondent right to approach the Court for relief of injunction, is reproduced below for ready reference: “ARTICLE 20 LEGAL REMEDIES/RELIEF The Franchisee agrees that, without prejudice to any other remedies which may be available to TTSL, injunctive relief may be the only effective relief for a breach of certain of the Franchisee’s covenants hereunder, including without limitation the provisions that deal with Non-Competition and confidentiality and those providing for the protection of the Intellectual Properties of TTSL and of TTSL’s Schemes, the breach of any of which may cause TTSL irreparable harm, non- compensable by damages alone, and therefore, agrees that TTSL shall be entitled to any such injunctive relief, including interim injunction(s), in any Court.” 6. A bare reading of the above reproduced Article shows that it is only the petitioners who can approach the Civil Court for injunctive relief and that too only in respect of the covenants referred to therein, when the harm caused to them by the franchisee, i.e. the plaintiff-respondent, is not compensable by damages alone. The franchisee, in no situation, can approach the Civil Court for injunctive relief, because in case of any alleged wrong committed by the …4… petitioners-defendants, the franchisee, i.e. the plaintiff- respondent, can be compensated by damages. 7. Arbitration clause is contained in Article 24 of the Agreement, which provides for referring any dispute, difference, conflict or question, arising between the parties, relating to, concerning or arising out of the agreement, to the arbitration of Chief Operating Officer and/or Vice President (Operations) of the petitioners-defendants. Since the plaintiff-respondent has approached the Civil Court with the allegation that termination of the franchisee is illegal, because of non-compliance of certain terms and conditions of the agreement, it can legitimately be said that there is a dispute between the parties relating to, concerning or arising out of the agreement. 8. In view of the abovestated position, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the lower Court is directed to refer the dispute to the arbitration of the Officer, named in Article 24 of the franchisee agreement. Petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the lower Court on 10th November, 2010. October 4, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J