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.
Kushalpolysacks Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
My Preferred Transformation Hospitality Private Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 895 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021




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 agreement.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(5) and 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Petition filed for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a lease agreement concerning property ownership and overdue payments - Respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator after notice and consented to the court's appointment of a sole arbitrator. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Jurisdiction - Disputes between the parties regarded as arbitrable as consent was given for appointment of a sole arbitrator by the court. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of property in Kolkata, entered a lease agreement with the respondent for running a hotel but faced issues with delayed rent payments starting February 2020; possession was returned by the respondent in August 2020.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition for arbitrator appointment, selecting a retired judge as arbitrator and stating arbitration shall follow DIAC rules.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of the arbitration clause and the consent of the parties for appointment of arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the disputes were arbitrable and the formalities under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be observed in proceeding with arbitration.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. dispute initiation and lease agreement background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. consent to arbitration (Para 6)
3. appointment of arbitrator (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. disposal of petition and notification (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Sections 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. Pertinently, petitioner is an absolute owner of the land, comprising of ground floor plus four storied building constructed thereon, located at Mouza-Raigachi, J.L. No.12, P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata-700135.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent approached the petitioner for allowing them to use the property mentioned above to run a hotel under the brand name of "OYO HOTELS" or "OYO TOWNHOUSE". A meeting was held between the parties wherein respondent proposed that the petitioner would be required to pay to respondent Rs.38,50,000/- on account of fittings fixtures, decorative items as per standard of OYO apart from payment of Rs.8,50,000/- towards design consultancy. Upon such payment, respondent would enter into a lease agreement and shall pay a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- per month once the business commences. It was agreed that parties would bear the cost of registration and a lock-in-period of 7 years.

4. Besides, petitioner also claims to have handed over all the relevant documents pertaining the title of the petitioner on the said property, so that the respondent can satisfy the title of the petitioner over the said property before entering into said lease agreement. The final lease deed was executed on 20.10.2019 and was registered on 03.01.2020 and respondent took possession of the same on 30.12.2019. However, respondent started delaying the payments of rents from February & March 2020. Further, certain more disputes with regard to payment of rent and schedule thereof arose between the parties and various email were exchanged in this regard. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent failed to make the due payments and instead, on 07.08.2020 handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner, which was accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, petitioner sent a notice to the respondent for invocation of arbitration as per clause 14.2 of the registered lease deed and proposed two names as Arbitrators. However, respondent failed to appoint the Arbitrator and thus, the present petition has been filed.

6. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has disputed the claims raised in the present petition, however, has submitted that the disputes are arbitrable and has consented to the appointment of sole Arbitrator by this Court.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Jayant Nath (Mobile: 8527959494) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

8. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance with Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.

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