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
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:
(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
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.
The court affirmed the existence of a valid arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, binding the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Non-signatory parties can be compelled to arbitrate if the disputes are fundamentally connected and associated with each other, even if they are not parties to the arbitration agreement.
The Court clarified that deletion of a party from proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the invocation of the arbitration clause against the deleted pa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of party autonomy in arbitration, the enforceability of the entire arbitration clause, and the conditional acceptance of arbitration....
The appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires only a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement's existence, with mixed questions of law....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the agreed procedure in the contract. If the appointment is not in line with the a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.