( 1 ) M/s. In Touch Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. , represented by its Director, has filed this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (for short the Act ) r/w the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, or resolution of the disputes between them and the respondent.

( 2 ) THE applicant claims to have entered into a lease agreement under Lease Deed dated 18-6-2001 with the respondent, namely M/s. Ashwarya Builders, for leasing out their premises on the III Floor of, premises bearing No. 8-2-5-2/1/ag, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, to the applicant for housing their office, for a period upto 17-7-2004. At the time of entering into lease agreement, the applicant claims to have paid security deposit in an amount of Rs. 8,79,300/- to the respondent, as per the terms and conditions of the Lease Deed, which was refundable at the time of vacating the premises by them.

( 3 ) WHILE the agreement was in force, the application by their letter dated 14-8-2003 appears to have terminated the lease invoking Clause 21 of the Lease Deed, on the ground that they no longer required the premises as they were downsizing their operations in India, and requested the respondent to refund the security deposit, after adjusting the amounts, if any, payable by them, as per Clause 2 of the Lease Deed. Thereafter, the applicant addressed another letter to the respondent on 7-11-2003 seeking their permission and informing them that they would vacate the premises on 31-12-2003 instead of 13-11-2003 and that the rent payable by them for the months from October, 2003 to December, 2003 be adjusted against the security deposit.

( 4 ) AFTER adjustment of the rents for the period from October to December, according to the applicant, the respondent was liable to refund them an amount of Rs. 5,97,351/ -. Thereafter, on 31-12-2003, the applicant under intimation to the respondent vacated the premises, leaving the fittings and fixtures, with an understanding that the respondent would find a suitable tenant, who would take on lease the premises along with the fittings and fixtures. While so, it is the case of the applicant, that when one of their employees and consultant visited the premises in the second week of February, he was shocked to notice that the fittings and fixtures were illegally removed by the respondent without knowledge of the applicant. By the removal of the fittings and fixtures by the respondent, according to the applicant, dispute arose between them, and therefore, the applicant demanded the respondent to refund of the security deposit, but in vain. Therefore, the applicant, having regard to the arbitration clause in Clause 29 of the Lease Deed, got issued notice dated 2-6-2004 to the respondent, nominating Sri. D. Surya, Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, as their nominee Arbitrator. The respondent having received the said notice, vide their letter dated 12-6-2004 denied the existence of any disputes, much less arbitrable disputes and failed to pay the security deposit. As the respondent neither refunded the security deposit nor nominated their Arbitrator, the applicant filed the present Arbitrator Application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

( 5 ) THE respondent filed counter stating that the Lease Deed dated 18-6-2001 basing on which the applicant is seeking appointment of Arbitrator is an unregistered document, and as such, it can neither be relied nor pressed into service. Inasmuch as the very Lease Deed is itself invalid and inadmissible in evidence, neither the contents thereof nor the arbitration clause contained therein, can be looked into nor acted upon, and therefore, the application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable, and more so when the respondent does not owe any amounts to the applicant. In support of his contention that an agreement, the value of which exceeds Rs. 100/- requires registration under the provisions of S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document