The court determined that once arbitration proceedings commence, they cannot be closed due to technical non-compliance with timelines, emphasizing the right to a just resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

ORDER 

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

ON I.A.Nos.1 AND 2 OF 2024

The petitioner, in the subject petition, had prayed for referring the matter for arbitration and to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents, arising out of a lease deed dated 19-08-2011 and renewals thereof dated 26-07-2012, 10-07-2013, 29-04-2014 and 01-04-2015.

2. This Court, on hearing the parties, disposed of the petition on 01-10-2021 by appointing one Sri I.S.Antin, Retired District Judge as a sole arbitrator to enter into the reference of the dispute between the parties and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru (‘Centre’ for short) by the following order:

“…. …. ….

2. The petitioner and respondents entered into a Lease Agreement for lease of the schedule premises as found in agreement, after which, certain disputes with regard to payment of lease advance amount in terms of the Lease Agreement amount to Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs) remained un-paid, pursuant to which, the petitioners at the out-set issued two notices demanding the amount.

3. The notice was issued by the petitioner on 20.03.2017 seeking refund of the security deposit and this was replied to by the respondents on 04.04.2017 denying refund of the amount contending that it is not refundable for reasons stated in Paragraph-17. Again, the petitioner caused a notice on 29.01.2018 seeking resolution of the dispute by appointing an Arbitrator. This notice though served upon the respondents, they have not replied. Even before this Court, the respondents are though served, have remained un-represented.

4. The contents of Lease Agreement entered into between the parties contemplates resolution of dispute by way of Arbitration. Clause-20 of the said agreement reads as follows:-

"20. Arbitration, Governing Law, Jurisdiction:

If any dispute, controversy or claim between the parties arises out of or in connection with or in relation to this lease, the same shall be referred to arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by a sole arbitrator appointed by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the said Act. Any arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties. The venue of the arbitration shall be Bangalore. The language of the arbitration shall be English. This lease shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the Laws of India and subject to the arbitration specified above, the Courts at Bangalore shall have exclusive jurisdiction in this regard."

5. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid clause in Lease Agreement, the dispute to be resolved by way arbitration. Therefore, accepting the proposed name of the Arbitrator Sri. I.S. Antin, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:-

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed, appointing Sri I.S. Antin, Retired District Judge, No.23, ‘Basava’, Venkatappa road, Taskar Town, Off. Queens Road Bengaluru- 560051 Cell: 9880370288, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the parties and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

[b] All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

[c] The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru and Sri. I.S. Antin, Retired District Judge (Cell: 9880370288), as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.”

Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner submits that it has tried to contact the respondents to explore possibility of settlement instead of moving to arbitration. Subsequent change in the management of the Company and then prevailing pandemic did not yield any result of the talks of settlement. In the meanwhile the clock wa