The court emphasized the need for adherence to arbitration clauses in agreements and proceeded to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for the resolution of disputes stemming from a Lease Deed.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "Arbitration Act") has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

2. The petitioner is running a business by the name of Shri Ram Medicos at Delhi and the respondent no. 1 is a trust running a hospital namely, Jagat Ganga Multi Speciality Hospital. The petitioner, upon suggestions of the respondents, agreed to execute a Lease Deed, dated 9th March 2017, to start a pharmacy outlet in the Hospital of the respondent no. 1. However, even after a substantial period, the respondents did not commence the construction of the pharmacy as per the agreement between the parties despite submission of the requisite amount.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved of the conduct of the respondents, sent several reminders and having received no sufficient response, ultimately, issued the notice dated 11th September 2018, invoking Clause 6.4 of the Deed, thereby terminating the Lease Deed. The petitioner also demanded the refundable security amount deposited by him to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the respondents, by way of serving the notice dated 23rd October 2019 under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, seeking reconciliation of the account and settle the matter amicably and appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 10 and 10.2 of the Lease Deed. However, the respondents failed to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the parties. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking inter alia the following reliefs:

"(A) Appoint the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties as enumerated herein above: (B) Decide the fees and remuneration of the appointed Sole Arbitrator in terms the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Administrative Costs and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules and the same may please be directed to be paid by the respondent;"

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 2 induced him to execute the Lease Deed and start a pharmacy at the Hospital of respondent no. 1. He was misled to believe that the respondents had a valid license to operate a Hospital and that entire project was sanctioned by the Government Authorities. The petitioner, accordingly, executed the Lease Deed and paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the respondents, which was refundable upon expiry of the validity of the Lease Deed or termination of the agreement.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite execution of the Lease Deed and receiving the substantial amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, the respondents did not commence the construction of the structure required for setting up and running a pharmacy at the Hospital of the respondent no. 1. The respondents also failed to hand over the part of the property agreed upon between the parties for running the pharmacy and hence, completely failed to discharge their obligations in terms of the agreement and Lease Deed.

7. Learned counsel submitted that several reminders were sent to the respondents, however, they failed to explain the inordinate delay in carrying out the construction and handing over the portion of the Hospital to the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner served the notice dated 11th September 2018 upon the respondents for termination of the Lease Deed and also demanded back the refundable security amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-. However, thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents to settle the disputes between them amicably. Since, the respondents did not act upon the requests made by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes, the petitioner moved this Court and is now seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the