Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
M/s Kp Cars Intl Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Kansal - Appellant
Versus
Amish Gupta & Anr. - Respondents
Arbitration Petition No. 1014 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Arbitration - Lease Agreement - Appointment of Arbitrator
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company under the Companies Act, 1956, sought the appointment of an Umpire (Arbitrator) as per clause 19 of a lease agreement for commercial accommodation for running a showroom and authorized service center for imported luxurious cars.
Finding of the Court:
The court appointed an Umpire Arbitrator and two party-appointed Arbitrators in accordance with the clause 19 of the lease deed. The court also directed the arbitrators to ensure compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
Issues: Appointment of Umpire Arbitrator, Compliance with Lease Agreement Clause 19, Compliance with Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the specific provisions of the lease agreement, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the need for compliance with the arbitration process.
Final Decision: The court appointed an Umpire Arbitrator and directed compliance with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Umpire (Arbitrator) as per clause 19 of lease agreement dated 18.12.2017. Pertinently, petitioner is a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and was willing to start a business of Automobiles and was in dire need of commercial accommodation for running and opening of the showroom and authorized service center for imported luxurious Cars having value of more than crores.
2. According to the petitioner, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the respondents through a mediator in Respect of the Khasra No.390/2/2, NH-8, Delhi-Gurugram Road, Rangpuri, Near Shiv Murti, New Delhi-110037, measuring area of about 11,000 Sq. ft. on Ground & First Floor. The petitioner through mediator had approached for taking the abovesaid premises with open area attached thereto, including terrace rights for commercial purposes. In March 2018, demised premise was sealed by the MCD as it was being used for commercial purpose without permission. Notice of demand dated 31.05.2021 was served by petitioner upon respondents thereby calling them to pay the amount as mentioned in paragraph 19 of the plaint and urged for appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondents. However, respondents did not comply with the same. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. Pertinently, as per cause19 of Lease Deed dated 18.12.2017, the disputes shall be resolved through an Arbitral Tribunal, which shall constitute a panel of three Arbitrators. Each party shall appoint one Arbitrator and two appointed Arbitrators so appointed shall appoint one umpire Arbitrator.
4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has proposed the name of Ms. Priyanka Bhandari, Advocate [38 LAWYER CHAMBER PICKET ROAD, MUMBAI-400002, Mobile: 8981096731] as Arbitrator on behalf of petitioner.
5. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has disputed the claims raised by the petitioner, however, acceded that the disputes inter se parties are arbitrable. Learned counsel also informed that respondents propose the name of Ms. B. L. Garg, ADJ (Retd.) (Mobile:9810827815) as the second Arbitrator.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have prayed that this Court may appoint the umpire Arbitrator.
7. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sunil Gaur (Mobile: 9971000718) is appointed Umpire Arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Besides, Ms.Priyanka Bhandari, Advocate is appointed Arbitrator on behalf of petitioner and Ms. B. L. Garg, ADJ (Retd.) is appointed Arbitrator on behalf of respondents.
8. The fee of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sunil Gaur, learned Arbitrator, shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrators shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
The court's decision was based on the specific provisions of the lease agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the arbitration process.
The court emphasized the authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act to appoint an umpire arbitrator and affirmed that the disputes regarding the lease agreement are arbitrable.
The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointed arbitrator must adhere to the provisions of the Act in resolv....
The court's decision was guided by the existence of the arbitration agreement and the consent of the parties, as well as the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of arbitration in resolving disputes and upholding the terms of the arbitration agreement.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of the disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
