Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Sanjay Fotedar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 404 of 2017
Decided On : 27-09-2017
For the Petitioners: Ms. Sonia A. Menon and Ms. Pallavi Shali.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Kashwal, Ms. Priya Darshani Singh and Mr. Rajiv Kapur.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party's conduct amounting to forum shopping disentitles them to any relief from the court.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Stay of Operation of Notice - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9 - [Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court discussed the petitioner's possession of the premises, forum shopping, and the legal principles related to possession and eviction. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's conduct disentitled them to any relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a stay of operation of a notice to remove hindrance from a convenience store situated at a specific location. The petitioner claimed possession of the premises based on an agreement with the respondent, while the respondent sought to remove the convenience store.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct amounted to forum shopping and disentitled them to any relief. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's conduct disentitled them to any relief.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's possession of the premises, forum shopping, and the validity of the notice issued by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to forum shopping and disentitled them to any relief. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's possession did not amount to settled possession, and the notice issued by the respondent was valid due to the expiration of the license.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the respondent was directed to ensure access to the petitioner in the premises for a period of at least 24 hours for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to take away the goods belonging to them.
JAYANT NATH, J.
I.A. No. 11526-11527/2017 (exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) No. 404/2017
1. This petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking stay of operation of the notice dated 24.09.2017 issued by the respondent to remove any hindrance from the entry of the convenience store situated at Auto Care Centre, Niti Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 09.06.2005 the parties entered into an agreement whereby the petitioner was permitted to run a convenience store for motorist at the T&E Station of the Company at Niti Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, which is an exclusive property of the respondent. The petitioner was to operate convenience store by purchasing the approved products and selling the same to the public by providing necessary man power for that purpose. Admittedly, the term of the agreement was for 11 months. Thereafter, there have been two extensions. The last term expired on 31.03.2008.
3. Thereafter, there has been litigation between the parties. The petitioner filed civil suit for permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi where initially an injunction order was passed. Thereafter, the said injunction order was vacated by the trial court by order dated 07.01.2009. The trial court held the petitioner to be a mere licensee and rejected the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was a tenant of the premises.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide its order dated 03.05.2011 upheld the order of the trial court.
5. In August, 2012, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act where the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi granted an interim order in favour the petitioner against dispossession. Thereafter by order dated 07.09.2017 the complaint was dismissed holding that there is no element of the petitioner being a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
6. A third round of litigation has now commenced before the writ court. It appears that pursuant to the dismissal of the complaint by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Delhi, the electricity of the petitioner was disconnected. The petitioner filed a W.P. (C) No. 8203/2017 whereby this court on 14.09.2017 noting that supply of electricity is essential and cannot be disconnected, directed restoration of the electricity supply forthwith.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that she is in possession of the premises for the last 12 years. She submits that at best some reasonable time be granted to the petitioner to enable her client to dispose/remove the inventory of perishable commodities and other products worth about Rs. 30 lacs to windup the business. She submits that her client is ready to give an undertaking in case some reasonable time is granted to vacate the said premises. The learned counsel also submits that under clause 31 of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner had to be given at least 30 days time advance notice. She submits that to that extent the communication issued by the respondent dated 24.09.2017 is bad in law.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits as follows:
(i) The petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. The petitioner has initially filed a suit and managed to persuade the civil court to pass an injunction order in its favour. He also submits that once the trial court vacated the injunction order, the petitioner moved to the appellate court and the appellate court upheld the order of the trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner managed to persuade the State Consumer Forum to pass an interim order in its favour. The State Consumer Forum also dismis
