SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Vistrat Real Estates Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Asian Hotels North Ltd - Respondent
Arb. P. No. 1124 of 2021
Decided On : 22-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sidhant Kumar & Ms. Manyaa Chandhok.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of the involvement of a third party and the entitlement to the refundable security deposit, in the context of arbitration, is to be determined by the Arbitrator as per the Doctrine of Competence-Competence.

Headnote:

Arbitrator - Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the clauses 2, 3, and 7 of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements between the parties. The court also referred to the decisions in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Shah Pandya and Another, Chrolo Controls India Private Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Ors., and Vidya Drolia.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the disputes arising from the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements with the respondent. The respondent objected to arbitration, citing the involvement of a third party who was not a signatory to the agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issue of the involvement of a third party and the entitlement to the refundable security deposit would be for the Arbitrator to determine, as per the Doctrine of Competence-Competence. The court appointed a former Judge of the Court as the Arbitrator and reserved the respondent's right to file counter-claim and objections before the Arbitrator.

Issues: The main issue was whether the disputes arising from the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements could be referred to arbitration, considering the involvement of a third party who was not a signatory to the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Doctrine of Competence-Competence, holding that once a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the issue of the involvement of a third party and the entitlement to the refundable security deposit would be for the Arbitrator to decide.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and a former Judge of the Court was appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”).

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased the ground 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th floors of New Tower, Bhikaji Cama Place, R. K. Puram, New Delhi along with the respective car parking areas at the Hyatt Complex from the respondent vide four registered Sale Deeds dated 12th May, 2014 (in short the Agreements) along with perpetual right to use car parking area.

3. The petitioner transferred and assigned all rights and title in the premises to IndusInd Bank Limited along with perpetual right to use car parking area. Thereafter, the petitioner sought refund of the security deposit of Rs.15 Crores deposited by the petitioner pursuant to Refundable Security Deposit Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. Since, the claim of the petitioner now is in terms of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements dated 12th May, 2014, Clause 7 whereof provides for an arbitration, the petitioner invoked arbitration and thereafter filed the present petition.

4. According to the petitioner on the disputes arising, petitioner issued a demand notice vide the letter dated 3rd July, 2021, which was not responded by the respondent and, thereafter, the petitioner issued notice dated 25th August, 2021 giving 30 days time for resolution of the disputes failing which the invocation of the arbitration in terms of the Agreements. Even this notice dated 25th August, 2021 was not replied by the respondent.

5. Clause 7 of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements between the parties reads as under:

    “7. If the dispute is not resolved though such discussion within 30 (thirty) days after one Party has served a written notice on the other Party requesting the commencement of discussions, then such dispute shall be referred at the request in writing of any Party to the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India, as amended from time to time by a sole arbitrator to be mutually appointed by the Parties. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language and the place of arbitration shall be New Delhi.

Costs: The costs and expenses of the arbitration, including, without limitation, the fees of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by each Party and each Part shall pay its own fees, disbursements and other charges of its counsel, except for the fees and costs in respect of the arbitrator which shall be borne equally by the Parties. The arbitrator shall have the power to award interest on any sum awarded pursuant to the arbitration proceedings and such sum would carry interest, if awarded, until the actual payment of such amounts.”

6. Though no reply affidavit has been filed to this petition despite time having been granted, the claim of the respondent before this Court is that in view of the third party intervention as the property has been sold off by the petitioner to some other party and the respondent has to take the refundable security deposit money from the said third party, the so called dispute cannot be referred to arbitration as the third party is not a signatory to the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements, Clause 7 whereof provides for reference of disputes to arbitration.

7. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Refundable Security Deposit Agreements between the petitioner and respondent read as under:

    “2. Subject to clause 3 herein below, the amount of Refundable Security Deposit shall be refunded by AHNL to Vistrat within 07 days from the date on which Vistrat transfers the title of the Said Property to any third party along with transferable perpetual right to use of the Car Parking Area. Unless transfer of both the floors of the Said Property along with right to use Car Parking Area does not take place, AHNL shall continue to hold the Refundable Security Deposit. Delayed payme

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top