D-day is finally here - (read dreadful)! Let the burger cravings begin! McDonald's India is set to shut down as many as 169 stores across North and East region from today as from September 6, the Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd (CPRL) will not be authorised to use its brand name and trademark.
D-day is finally here – (read dreadful)! Let the burger cravings begin! McDonald’s India is set to shut down as many as 169 stores across North and East region from today as from September 6, the Connaught Plaza Restaurants Ltd (CPRL) will not be authorised to use its brand name and trademark. The news has not only left food lovers heartbroken but has also put a question mark on the livelihood of over 10,000 staff members. McDonald’s India had asked CPRL not to use its brand system, trademark, designs and its associated intellectual property, among others, within 15 days of the termination notice which gets over on September 6 ie.e today.
Yesterday, The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had issued a show-cause notice to fast food major McDonald’s Corporation and its Indian arm over the contempt plea filed by their estranged Indian partner Vikram Bakshi. However, the tribunal had dismissed another plea by Bakshi which challenged the termination of the franchise license of 169 outlets by McDonald’s, run by their 50:50 joint venture – Connaught Plaza Restaurant.
Bakshi had filed a contempt petition alleging that by terminating the license the US-based food giant has violated the NCLT order dated July 13 which reinstated him as the Managing Director of CPRL and also refrained McDonald’s Corporation to interfere in the functioning of CPRL.
“It has been argued that on account of filing an appeal before the NCLAT, notice in the present application for contempt may not be issued. However, we are unable to accept the submission,” said NCLT bench headed by Chairman Justice M M Kumar, as per a report by PTI. The tribunal further directed McDonald’s, MIPL and other respondents to reply the “notice to show cause” by September 20. NCLT said it was “of view that this application at this stage would not be maintainable because both… have filed their respective appeals which are pending before the NCLAT”.