Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 291
High Court of Delhi
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
M/s. Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Tarseem Kumar & Others – Respondent
IA Nos. 497 of 2014 & 17214 of 2013 in OMP No. 1064 of 2012
Decided On : 24-02-2015
For the Petitioner:Jagjit Singh, Nisha, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R1 to R3, Anil Kumar, Pramod Pandey, Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Manoj Gupta, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of appointing a competent Receiver and the obligation of parties to cooperate with the Receiver and submit relevant documents for arbitration proceedings.
Headnote:
Receiver - Commercial Agreement Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9, Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, Section 151 CPC - 6, 7, 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a commercial agreement between parties, leading to the appointment of a Receiver under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Receiver was tasked with overseeing the affairs and conduct of a restaurant business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointed Receiver had resigned, leading to the appointment of a new Receiver. The court also addressed an application seeking modification of the order, emphasizing the need for cooperation with the Receiver and the submission of relevant documents for arbitration proceedings.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the appointment and resignation of the Receiver, cooperation with the Receiver, and the submission of relevant documents for arbitration proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of appointing a competent Receiver to oversee the disputed business affairs and the need for cooperation with the Receiver to facilitate arbitration proceedings. It also highlighted the obligation to submit relevant documents for the arbitration process.
Final Decision: The court appointed a new Receiver and directed the parties to cooperate with the Receiver, submit relevant documents, and appear before the Receiver for further proceedings.
IA Nos. 497/2014 (filed on behalf of impleaded respondent M/s. Shree Rathnam Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. to modify the order dated 17.4.2013) & 17214/2013 (under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of fresh Receiver)
1. By this order, I would dispose of two applications, one being IA 17214 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for appointing a new Receiver pursuant to order dated April 17, 2013 and IA 497/2014 filed by M/s. Shree Rathanam Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. (‘SRRP’, in short), impleaded respondent seeking directions for working of Receiver.
2. The brief facts, are, an agreement dated May 01, 2005 was executed between the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and M/s. Sagar Ratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (‘SRHP’, in short) in respect of a commercial premises bearing No. 33, 35 & 36, Pocket C-9, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi situated on the ground and first floors, whereby, it was agreed by the said respondents to provide the same to SRHP for running a restaurant on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. One of the terms being that the duration of the agreement was for a period of ten years from the date of opening the restaurant, which could be increased further for such a period on the terms and conditions, as may be mutually agreed between the parties. Another important term as stipulated in Clause 19 of the said agreement is that both the parties could terminate the agreement by serving three months notice in writing in the event of there being violation of any of the terms and conditions thereof. In the case of termination, SRHP was to hand over the possession of the premises along with the fixtures etc. to the respondents. Further, one of the important term as stipulated in Clause 20 is that in the event of expiry of the agreement, the respondents could not use the name “SAGAR RATNA” or any other name identical to it, and could not continue the restaurant business for a further period of seven years. After the agreement dated May 1, 2005, another supplementary agreement dated June 17, 2011 was executed between the respondents, the petitioner herein and SRHP. By virtue of this agreement, the present petitioner acquired all the rights of SRHP in respect of the restaurant business that was being carried by SRHP in the suit premises. All the terms and conditions as stipulated in agreement of May 1, 2005 executed between the respondents and SRHP were to be applicable to the petitioner herein. In other words, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of SRHP qua the suit premises and the restaurant business being carried therein on all the terms and conditions of the agreement dated May 1, 2005.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have unauthorizedly dispossessed it in connivance with some of its staff officials on 24.09.2012. It is also noted that notice of termination of the agreement was sent by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the petitioner on September 23, 2012. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 raised certain disputes and differences. The petitioner was called by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for rendition and settlement of accounts and was asked to give the possession of the premises and fixtures immediately.
4. Suffice to state, the aforesaid OMP was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for certain interim reliefs. The said petition was decided by this Court vide order dated April 17, 2013, wherein this Court had passed the following order:
“6. With the consent of the both the parties, the Receiver is to be appointed till such time, the disputes and differences between the parties are settled by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, Sh. J.P.Sharma, Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) is appointed as Receiver as regard to the affairs and conduct of the restaurant business by the respondents themselves or through M/s. Shree Rathnam in the premises i.e. 33, 35 & 36, Pocket C-9, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. Sh. J.P.Sharma would device his own means and methods for main
