Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute regarding lease agreement and force majeure invocation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration. (Para 7) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and fee structure. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. order disposed and communicated to arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been preferred seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Petitioner and respondent herein are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013.
3. According to petitioner, on being approached by respondent with requirement of office space, the petitioner entered into a Lease Agreement dated 30.07.2019 with respondent (erstwhile known as M/s Alcott Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.) with respect to premises located on the first of Subharam Complex, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001, for a lease period of six years, out which 36 months was to be lock-in period.
4. Petitioner claims that immediately after execution of the aforesaid Lease Agreement, respondent took possession
The court held that disputes arising from a lease agreement, including claims related to force majeure, should be resolved through arbitration when both parties consent to arbitration.
The court appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reaffirming that disputes regarding lease agreements and arbitration initiation can be resolved th....
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
The court held that financial hardship cannot prevent arbitration based on a valid arbitration agreement if an arbitrable dispute is present.
The court determined that disputes arising from multiple agreements related to a lease are arbitrable, appointing an arbitrator to resolve questions of applicability and obligations under the agreeme....
The court upheld its jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in landlord-tenant disputes based on an arbitration clause, affirming party autonomy in jurisdictional matters despite objections.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes related to lease agreements.
The court mandated arbitration for disputes arising from a lease agreement per the arbitration clause, reinforcing the resolution of contract disputes through agreed methods.
Where a party defaults on contractual obligations and fails to contest a petition for arbitration, the court may appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.
The court affirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the lease agreement, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of disputes through arbitration as per agreed terms.
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
