IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
ABL International Ltd. (Now Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd.) – Respondent
A.P.O. Nos. 171, 172, 180, 181 of 2018, A.P. Nos. 455, 456, 616, 618 of 2014
Decided On : 10-05-2023
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 107 and 53A - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17,32 and 49 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 35 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 73 and 47 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31(3) 11(6) and 28(3) - Executed a deed of lease in favour of award - successors-in-interest - Lease agreements were for a period of 21 years, with an option for renewal for a term of ten years on certain terms and conditions being fulfilled - Corporation filed a counter-suit being Suit for a decree for specific performance of agreement in respect of the 5th floor of said premises and renewal of the lease by a further period of ten years – Held, Conduct of Corporation in inducing the claimants to withdraw all proceedings which saved them from huge financial liabilities following decree of eviction and thereafter suddenly terminate the lease after having agreed to continue for a fixed period of time is a relevant factor - In fact, it is clear from evidence that Corporation raised objection to the termination clause suggested by claimants in the draft lease - They have even agreed to execute the lease – Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SOUMEN SEN, J.
1. These present appeals and cross-appeals are arising out of a common judgment and order dated April 23, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in connection with four applications for setting aside of two arbitral awards both dated December 20, 2013 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the 1996 Act’).
I. Summary of Facts
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals, are summarised below:
(II) Both the lease agreements were for a period of 21 years, with an option for renewal for a term of ten years on certain terms and conditions being fulfilled. The lease for the 5th floor and the 7th floor of the said premises expired due to efflux of time on September 1, 1994 and January 1, 1997 respectively. The Corporation, however, did not vacate the two floors upon the expiry of the leases.
(III) On April 21, 1995, the lessor of the 5th floor filed a suit in this Court, being Suit No. 138 of 1995, against the Corporation praying inter-alia for khas possession of the 5th floor of the said premises and mesne profits. The Corporation filed a counter-suit being Suit No. 134 of 1996 for a decree for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the 5th floor of the said premises and renewal of the lease by a further period of ten years. The suit filed by the lessor was allowed and a decree for eviction and mesne profits was passed on March 12, 1998, and the suit filed by the Corporation was dismissed.
(IV) In the meantime, the lessor of the 7th floor also filed another suit in this Court, being Suit No. 93B of 1997, against the Corporation in respect of the 7th Floor with similar reliefs. In the said suit, the lessor filed an application for summary judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. By a judgment and decree dated July 14, 1998, a Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court allowed the said application and directed the Corporation to handover vacant possession of the 7th floor of the said premises to the lessor on or before March 1, 1999. The learned Single Judge also appointed a Special Referee to assess mesne profits for the period of overstay by the Corporation.
(V) Aggrieved by the orders passed in both the proceedings, the parties filed three separate appeals. The first two appeals were filed by the lessors and the Corporation respectively against the order of the Single Judge dated March 12, 1998 in respect of the 5th floor of the said premises. The third appeal was filed by the Corporation against the order of the Single Judge dated July 14, 1998 allowing the Chapter XIIIA application of the landlord in respect of the 7th floor of the said premises.
(VI) A Division Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the first two appeals by an order dated August 24, 1999. In regards the third appeal, a Division Bench of this Court, by an interim order dated April 19, 1999, after recording the undertaking of the Corporation to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. ft. per month inclusive of air conditioning and service charges, granted a stay on the operation of the judgment and decree of the Single Judge d
Abhey Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. SSIPL Retail
Associated Engineering Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
Delhi Development Authority vs. R.S. Sharma
Food Corporation of India vs. Babulal Agarwal
Kailash Nath Associates vs. D.D.A. and Another
Kusheshwar Prosad Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others
K.B. Saha and Sons Private Ltd. vs. Development Consultant Ltd. 2008 (8) SCC 564
Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs. Marishchandra Dwarkadas and Others
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah vs. Muddasani Sarojana
Mc Dermott International vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. 2006 (11) SCC 181
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705
Park Street Properties Private Limited vs. Dipak Kumar Singh and Another
Patel Engineering Limited vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation
Pannalal Jugatmal vs. State of M.P. AIR 1963 M.P. 242
P.R. Shah Shares and Stock Brothers vs. M/s. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. 2012 (1) SCC 594
Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Co. vs. Union of India
Samir Narayan Bhojwani vs. Aurora Properties and Investment and Another
Sangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. vs. National Highway Authority of India
State of U.P. and Others vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead) through L.Rs. 2004 (1) SCC 1
State of Gujarat and Others vs. Nirmalaben S. Mehta and Another
SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chandmari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (14) SCC 66
Sociedade De Fomento Industrial (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company
State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (12) SCC 1
V.L. Sreedhar and Others vs. K.M. Munireddy (Dead) and Others
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference and confirming the validity of the Sole Arbitrator's findings regarding the Lease Deed.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that the Sole Arbitrator's findings were plausible and did not warrant judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The arbitrator must address allegations of fraud and collusion affecting the enforceability of a contract; failure to do so results in an award being set aside for patent illegality.
(1) Payment of rent – Rights and liabilities of parties arise from date of execution of lease and not from any anterior date.(2) Arbitral award – Grounds for setting aside an award are very limited.
The court affirmed that an arbitral award can only be set aside for patent illegality, emphasizing that lessor maintained obligations under the lease despite lessee's claims. Termination due to non-p....
Limited interference with arbitral awards under S.34/37 of A&C Act; partial set-aside for patent illegality in severable claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.