IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Sandeep Khanna - Appellant
Versus
Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 986 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for arbitration under the arbitration act (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. breach of lease agreement by non-payment of rent (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. service of notice and absence of respondent (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appointment and compliance of arbitrator (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
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 with respondent.
2. As per the averments made by petitioners, they are the owners of the premises being an immoveable property, holding undivided share, admeasuring 5,980 sq. ft. situated at Upper Ground Floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. Vide a registered Lease Deed dated 12.07.2017, petitioners had let out the premises to the respondent for a period of 9 years from 15.11.2016 which would expire on 14.11.2025. According to the said deed, respondent was to pay to the petitioners a lease rental of .130/- per sq. ft. per month for the premises in question in advance on or before the 10th day of English calendar month, subject to the deduction of income tax at source in proportion to the super built-up area owned by each of the petitioners. It was also agreed in the said lease deed that the rent was to be enhanced by 15 % on the expiry of every block of 3 years and in case of delay in payment of the monthly rent, 1% per month simple interest would carry over.
3. According to the petitioners, respondent was put in possession of the premises by the petitioners and has been carrying on business therefrom. Respondent did not pay the rent at the enhanced agreed rate for any period and even rent paid at lesser rate which also paid for only some period, was also delayed.
4. It is contended by the petitioners that as the respondent did not pay any rent for the period April, 2020 to November 2020 and rents had remained in arrears for more than 90 days on numerous occasions, thus, the respondent had committed serious breach of the terms and conditions of the lease deed.
5. Accordingly, petitioners were constrained to invoke clause 9.2.2 of the said lease deed and serve the respondent with a notice dated 30.11.2020 and terminate the said Lease Deed dated 17.07.2017 and asking the respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice and remitting all the amounts due to the petitioners, however, respondent did not comply with the aforesaid notice.
6. Thereafter petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondent on 12.01.2021 calling upon to vacate the premises and handover its possession to the petitioners and make upto-date payment of arrears alongwith enhancement, penalty, rent, interest accrued and GST within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, however, respondent again did not comply with the said legal notice.
7. Accordingly, petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement on 29.07.2021 and the parties had a meeting on the said date to discuss and agree on the name of the sole arbitrator to be appointed. At the said meeting, petitioner proposed two names for appointment of the arbitrator and authorized representatives sought three days time. Thereafter, respondent did not revert back, hence, the present petition has been filed.
8. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
9. As per office report from Registry, service report qua notice to respondent through dasti, courier, speed post, email, fax and Whatsapp is awaited. As per the office report from the Registry, notice sent to respondent through the ordinary post and email is served.
10. According to affidavit of service filed by petitioner, service upon respondent has been effected through dasti, speed post and courier and email as is evident from dasti notice, track assignment slip and email which are annexed with the affidavit of service by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the afor
Court emphasized that a party's failure to respond to notices regarding breach of contract leads to the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes, as stipulated by the Arbitration and Concilia....
Appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in cases of serious breach of lease terms.
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 held that arbitration must be initiated if disputes remain unresolved, particularly when both parties accept the need for arbitration, affirming the provisions of the Arbitration and Concil....
The central legal point established is the arbitrability of the dispute as per the terms of the Lease Deed and the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration....
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.
Court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when parties fail to fulfill contractual obligations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause, the objection to unilateral appointment, and the agreement betwe....
Disputes arising from lease agreements are arbitrable, and consent for appointment of an arbitrator by the court can be given when one party fails to designate an arbitrator as per the lease agreemen....
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.