Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Meena - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 779 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2021
An arbitration clause in a contractual agreement mandates resolution of disputes through arbitration, emphasizing adherence to agreed procedures in case of disagreements.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Clause H of the license agreement provides for binding arbitration to resolve disputes. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Arbitration Agreement - Parties consented to arbitration after disputes arose regarding possession and payment terms, highlighting the need for amicable resolution through designated procedures. (Paras 1, 5)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over delayed possession of allotted shops and demand for license fees despite non-delivery. Despite assurances from officials, the petitioner faced cancellation of the tender and additional charges.
Findings of Court:
The respondent did not object to the arbitration for resolving disputes over contractual obligations and payment.
Issues: The primary issue was the authority to enforce the terms of the license agreement and whether the disputes warranted arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to arbitration clauses as a resolution mechanism for disputes, affirming that no response to the arbitration notice justified further legal action.
Result: The disputes were referred to arbitration under DIAC's aegis.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's entitlement to arbitration and background of dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arbitration clause in agreement. (Para 3) |
| 3. notice invoking arbitration sent by petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 4. agreement of both parties to refer dispute to arbitration. (Para 5) |
| 5. disputes referred to arbitration under diac. (Para 6) |
| 6. conclusion and order of the petition. (Para 7) |
ORDER (Oral)
(Video-Conferencing)
1. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that a reply to this petition may not be necessary, as the respondent is not objecting to the dispute between petitioner and the respondent being referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
2. The petition sets out the dispute between the parties in sub- paras (a) to (l) of para 7 thereof, which may be reproduced thus:
"a) That the Petitioner was allotted the 1st cluster of 06 Shops in link block, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi after being declared successful bidder for the same and consequently an agreement to operate a shop/ outlet at I.S.B.T was executed on license basis between the Petitioner and Respondent (Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited). A copy of the said agreement was notarized on 17.04.2017 and was handed over to the respondent.
b) That the Petitioner deposited the requisite amount along with the security of Rs. 7,92,792/- upon which possession letter in respect of the said shop was also given to the Petitioner on 01.02.2017. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the actual possession of the said shop was not given to the Petitioner for a long time.
c) That the Petitioner requested the officials of the respondent to give possession of the site immediately upon signing of the possession letter but the officials of respondent adopted deli-[sic] delaying tactics. The Petitioner was not satisfied with the attitude of the officials of the respondent as the agreement to license agreement was for a period of three years starting from 01 Feb 2017 and was to expire on 31 Jan 2020. The Petitioner thereafter met the Managing Director of the Respondent in that regard who was kind enough to direct the officials of DTIDC/ respondent to expedite the handing over possession of the said shops and also assured the Petitioner that the said period will be counted from the date of execution of the agreement between the parties. The agreement was finally signed by the Petitioner on 17.04.2017 and on the same day the actual possession was handed over to the Petitioner.
d) That the Petitioner was however shocked when the officials of the respondent asked the Petitioner to pay monthly license fees w.e.f. month of Feb onwards. The Petitioner immediately met the officials and protested in respect of the same as the agreement was not signed by that time and the shops were still under renovation. The agreement to license was finally signed on 17.04.2017 and the main work for selling several items actually started after signing the agreement, however, the Petitioner paid the license fee for the month of January and February 2017, upon assurance that the license fee will be adjusted towards the end of the license period.
e) That the Petitioner believed on the assurances and thereafter kept on working on the shops allotted to her. The Petitioner during the running of the said shop got one more opportunity to fill up the tender of one more space for shop no. MS-01, near entry gate service lane towards the metro station, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, (area measuring 30.00 sqft) and was declared successful bidder upon which, a letter of acceptance bearing no. Fno.-DTIDC/2017/- 18/ISBT/KG/954/220 dated 25.05.2018 was given to the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 01.06.2018 in favor of the Executive director, DTIDC ( respondent). Thereafter the officials of the respondent asked the Petiti
