Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Asian Hotels (north) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kumar Gallery Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 737/2021
Decided On : 27-08-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appointment of Arbitrator - License Agreement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, sought the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising from a License Agreement with the respondent regarding the use of a shop in a hotel complex.
Finding of the Court:
The respondent accepted the termination of the License Agreement and agreed to hand over possession of the premises to the petitioner, rendering the petition moot. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
Issues: Dispute over the revocation of the License Agreement and possession of the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The acceptance of the termination of the License Agreement and the agreement to hand over possession rendered the petition moot, leading to its disposal.
Final Decision: The petition seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator was disposed of as the dispute was resolved between the parties.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and respondent.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public limited company listed on the National Stock Exchange and is the owner of a hotel located in a building complex in the name and style of Hyatt Regency, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
3. Pertinently, the dispute inter se parties arise out of the License Agreement dated 18.01.1988 entered between the parties, by virtue of which respondent was permitted to use Shop No. U-68, located at the Shopping Arcade, Hotel Grand Hyatt, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The said License Agreement was time to time extended through Renewal Agreements.
4. However, petitioner by communication dated 29.05.2020 revoked the license agreement and called upon the respondent to remove all its goods/belongings from the premises by 01.06.2020. On the contrary, respondent by communication dated 29.06.2020, disputed the aforesaid revocation and refused to remove all his goods/belongings from the subject premises.
5. Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent has accepted the termination order dated 29.05.2020 and is willing and ready to hand over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner.
6. The aforesaid submission of respondent is accepted by counsel for petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the respondent shall remove goods/articles lying in the shop in question and shall hand over peaceful possession of the shop in question to the petitioner on 02.09.2021. It is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains in the present petition to be considered by this Court.
9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
The acceptance of the termination of the License Agreement and the agreement to hand over possession rendered the petition moot, leading to its disposal.
Court found termination of License Agreement accepted by respondent, resolving disputes without further arbitration.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from license agreements, emphasizing prior rulings and compliance with statutory requirements.
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Former Secretary, department of Law and Justice is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between parties in these petitions.
The court emphasized the unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties and rejected the contention of the petitioners to appoint an arbitrator of their choice, in line with the legal principl....
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration agreement between the parties and invocation of arbitration are not disputed by respondents - Till Arbitrator enters into reference, respondent s....
The court established that both parties must mutually agree on the appointment of an arbitrator to ensure unbiased adjudication and upheld the arbitration agreement between the parties.
The court affirmed the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from an uncontested License Agreement.
The court confirmed the right to appoint an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, affirming that the disputes were arbitrable.
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
