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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, J.
Gaurav Dhanuka and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Others - Respondents
ARB.P. No.1296 Of 2022, ARB.P. No. 1297 Of 2022 and ARB.P. No. 1324 Of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Gaurav Kakar and Mr. Amit Jain, Advs.
Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Badal Dayal and Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advs., Mr. Shafiq Khan, Adv.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Disputes between parties - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - [MAINTENANCE AGENCY] - [DISPUTES BETWEEN PARTIES] - [Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] - The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The disputes arose between the parties regarding determination of super area, maintenance charges, electricity connection load, and reduction of land rights. The court found that the maintenance agency derived its authority from the developer and the agreements were interlinked. The court held that the disputes were arbitrable and appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, owner of commercial units, sought appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes with the maintenance agency and the developer. The disputes arose over determination of super area, maintenance charges, electricity connection load, and reduction of land rights.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the maintenance agency derived its authority from the developer and the agreements were interlinked. The court held that the disputes were arbitrable and appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

Issues: The issues involved determination of super area, maintenance charges, electricity connection load, and reduction of land rights. The main contention was the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator and the arbitrability of the disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputes were arbitrable as the maintenance agency derived its authority from the developer and the agreements were interlinked. The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.

Final Decision: The court appointed a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The disputes were found to be arbitrable as the maintenance agency derived its authority from the developer and the agreements were interlinked.

JUDGMENT :

(Sachin Datta, J.) :—

ARB.P. 1296/2022

ARB.P. 1297/2022

ARB.P. 1324/2022

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “A&C Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. The petitioner no. 1 herein is the owner of following three commercial units:

S. No.

Unit No.

Petition No.

1.

Unit No. 1002, Plot No. B-2, 3, 4, NDM-1, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura Delhi-110034

ARB.P. 1296/2022

2.

Unit No. 1003, Plot No. B-2, 3, 4, NDM-1 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-11 0034

ARB.P. 1297/2022

3.

Unit No. 506, Plot No. D-1, 2, 3, NDM-2 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-11 0034.

ARB.P. 1324/2022

3. The petitioner no. 2 is a sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner no. 1 which is stated to be in occupation of the aforesaid units as a lessee.

4. The respondent no. 3 is the builder/developer (hereinafter referred to as the “developer”) of the buildings known as NDM-1 situated at Plot No. B-2, 3, 4, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi-110034 and NDM-2 situated at Plot No. B-1, 2, 3, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi-110034. The respondent no. 1 has been appointed by the developer as the maintenance agency for the said buildings responsible, inter-alia, for (i) Operation & Maintenance of air-conditioning system and plants, Fire - Fighting systems, lifts, other electrical & mechanical equipment systems as installed by the promoter/developer of the said building, (ii) maintenance of commons areas including basement, common areas, terraces, refuge areas etc., (iii) operation and maintenance of electric sub-station, pumps, transformer, D.G. Sets, Water Tanks, (iv) maintenance of compound wall, facade, landscaping, electrification, water supply, sewerage, roads, paths and other services within the said building, (v) security services for the building, (vi) insurance of the common plants & equipments in the building, (vii) responsibility of annual maintenance contract for electric sub-station, pumps, fire detection and fire-fighting equipments, transformers, DG Sets, HVAC, escalators, elevators, service lifts etc. (viii) insurance of electric sub-station, pumps, fire detection and fire-fighting equipments, transforms, DG sets, HVAC, escalators, elevators, service lifts, air conditioning plant room/chiller etc., and (ix) disposal of waste and garbage from garbage room.

5. The respondent no. 2 is a company, which has been appointed by the respondent no. 1 to function as property manager of the aforesaid buildings to maintain common areas of the buildings and operate the various facilities and to provide its services to the occupants in terms of Article 4 of the Maintenance Agreements. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “maintenance agency”.

Disputes between the parties

6. The grievance of the petitioners, in respect of which the disputes have arisen between the parties are stated to be as under:

    (i) Determination of super area attributable to the petitioner no. 1's aforesaid units for the purposes of calculation of maintenance charges on the date of its appointment of maintenance agency as well as on the date of the present petition.

(ii) Determination of rate at which the maintenance charges are leviable by the respondents in proportion to the super area available.

(iii) Gross illegality on part of the respondents in providing and attributing electricity connection load to the petitioners' units and consequently charging excess money from the petitioners qua fixed charges, unit charges etc; and

(iv) Reduction of proportionate land rights in wake of common areas being encroached, constructed and sold off by respondents in connivance, and in violation of sanctioned building plan, leading to cascading effects such as (i) fire safety hazard for the all the occupant

                              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