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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Aida Foods Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 1183 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2022




The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of sole Arbitrator - Petition filed by appellant for appointing Arbitrator due to disputes arising from non-payment of charges under lease agreement - Respondent did not oppose petition but disputed liability - Court appoints Arbitrator as per Clause 34 of agreement. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 10)

(B) Dispute resolution - The parties were to mutually appoint an Arbitrator which was not done, leading to the filing of the petition in court. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The appellant owns a mall and the respondent entered into an agreement for leasing a food stall space. Subsequent disputes regarding unpaid charges led to arbitration invocation.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes.

Issues: The primary issue was the appointment of an Arbitrator amidst the respondent's failure to acknowledge liability for payments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the respondent did not appoint an Arbitrator as agreed, the court must step in to facilitate resolution through an appointed Arbitrator.

Result: Petition allowed, Arbitrator appointed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the parties and lease agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on arbitration and appointment of an arbitrator. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's decision to appoint an arbitrator. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. conclusion and order disposal of the petition. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties.

2. Pertinently, petitioner and respondent both are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner owns the Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent had approached the petitioner for taking on lease/license the Retail Space Food Stall and Kitchen No.7. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.05.2018 for taking possession for fitouts and petitioner vacated the said premises and handed over the possession thereof to the Respondent on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, on 28.07.2021 petitioner communicated the respondent and called upon to pay sum of Rs.37,03,113/- towards the charges of the premises but respondent failed to pay the same. Thereafter, petitioner made several requests and consistent demands to pay the aforesaid due and payable amount and even though respondent assured to clear the same but did not pay the same till date. So, the disputes continued between the parties.

4. Thereafter, petitioner under clause 34 of the agreement dated 11.05.2018 sent a legal notice dated 20.09.2021 to the respondent invoking arbitration for recovery of accrued arrears of rent, CAM, electricity, water, LPG, promotional, LPC and other charges along with payment charges. In response thereto, respondent disputed its liability and made false allegations against the petitioner.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that as per Clause 34 of the Agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties, the sole Arbitrator is to be appointed mutually by the parties. However, since respondent has failed to appoint the sole Arbitrator, hence, the present petition has been filed.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has not opposed the present petition and the averments made therein but has not controverted that the disputes are arbitrable. Learned counsel has submitted that an Arbitrator be appointed by this Court for adjudication of dispute between the parties.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr.C.K. Chaturvedi, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9810652722) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

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