IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Oil India Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2015
Decided On : 26-06-2015
Constitution of India – 226, 14, 12 - Companies Act, 1956 - Letter of acceptance – Housing - Lease Deed - Building will be constructed as per requirement of OIL. Subsequently, as per your letter, you have assured that you will complete the flooring of the entire building with Ivory colored ceramic/vitrified tiles. But with regret we have to mention that approximately only 4707.33 sq. ft. in ground floor and a portion of third floor has been fitted with vitrified tiles. Finding no other alternative, OIL had to fit about 8968 sq. ft. with vinyl flooring. You will understand that it was agreed for a uniform rat for rent of the entire building anticipating uniformity in the entire flooring method. The cost of fixing ceramic/vitrified tiles would have been Sum Amount - Since OIL had to carry out flooring job spending a huge amount due to your failure to fix ceramic/vitrified tiles on the entire floor area, the said amount is refundable by you to OIL – Held, writ petition involving disputed question of fact in respect of a non-statutory contract by and between the petitioner and the respondent OIL bound by clauses of the lease agreement referred to above coupled with the dispute that arose between them traceable to the communications involved between them, is required to be resolved through arbitration clause quoted above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of requiring the parties to take recourse to clause 7 of the lease agreement, which provides for resolution of the dispute under lease deed, firstly by mutual consent and of both the parties and in case of failure, to refer the dispute for settlement by arbitration, which is also governed by Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under Section 9 of which, the petitioners are also entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Writ petition is disposed
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
1. While the petitioner No. 1 is a registered company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at LKRB Path, RG Baruah Road, Guwahati, the petitioner No. 2 is its Director. They are aggrieved by Annexure-3 letter dated 5.2.2015 of the respondent Oil India Limited (OIL). For a ready reference, the impugned letter is reproduced below:
"Oil India Limited
Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies,
Guwahati
Ref: OIL/COE/01/04-2/1333/2015
Date: 05.02.2015
M/s. Brahmaputra Business Pvt. Ltd.
'INTEGRA' Rukminigaon
G.S. Road, Guwahati 781022
Sub: Lease accommodation for Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies
Dear Sir,
This has reference to the lease agreement dated 15.11.2010 between Oil India Limited i.e. OIL and Brahmaputra Business private limited, i.e. M/s. BBPL for housing the office of Centre of Excellence for Energy Studies. Also refer to the NTT of OIL dated 01.02.2010, your offer dated 20.02.2010 and various correspondences till the letter of acceptance issued on 05.07.2010.
1. That by your offer letter dated 20.02.2010, you have mentioned that the entire flooring of the building will be constructed as per requirement of OIL. Subsequently, as per your letter dated 15.06.2010, you have assured that you will complete the flooring of the entire building with Ivory colored ceramic/vitrified tiles. But with regret we have to mention that approximately only 4707.33 sq. ft. in ground floor and a portion of third floor has been fitted with vitrified tiles. Finding no other alternative, OIL had to fit about 8968 sq. ft. with vinyl flooring. You will understand that it was agreed for a uniform rat of Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. for rent of the entire building anticipating uniformity in the entire flooring method. The cost of fixing ceramic/vitrified tiles would have been Rs. 10,96,123.00. Since OIL had to carry out flooring job spending a huge amount due to your failure to fix ceramic/vitrified tiles on the entire floor area, the said amount is refundable by you to OIL.
Accordingly you are hereby advised to refund the amount of Rs. 10,96,123.00 as OIL had to incur huge expenditure for covering the area of 8968 sq. ft. with Vinyl flooring.
2. That as per requirement and as per our letter dated 15.6.2010 you were supposed to provide the electrical wiring works for necessary minimum illumination of the building and provision of ACs. But even after execution of lease deed same was not done.
Finding no other alternative OIL had to do necessary wiring etc. by spending a huge amount of Rs. 14,65,000.00. These expenses were supposed to be borne by the lessor and as such you are advised to refund the amount of Rs. 14,65,000.00 immediately.
3. That by lease agreement dated 15.11.2010, you agreed to rent out the entire building charging rent for an area of 17183 sq. ft. @ Rs. 45/- per sq. ft. However, out Civil Engineering Department has measured the building and found the floor area of the building is only 16470.79 sq. ft. Thus, you have been receiving excess rent for an area of 712 sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 32,040.00 per month till January 2015. Till January, 2010, you have been paid an excess rent amount of Rs. 17,62,200.00 by OIL.
Accordingly, you are hereby advised to refund the excess amount of Rs. 17,62,200.00 which was paid to you due to wrong measurement of the building provided by you. Also note that henceforth you will be entitled for rent for an area of 16470.79 sq. ft. at the agreed rate of rent.
4. That while query was mad about the height of the building by our letter dated 29.4.2010, you have mentioned that the height of the building is 15.62 mtr. And hence NOC from State Fire Service is not required. However, out Civil Engineering Department has found that the actual height of the building is 17.62 mtr. Making it mandatory for the building to obtain NOC from Fire Service Authority. Thus, you have mislead us and you executed the lease deed by suppressing material
ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
General Manager, NF Railway Vs. Dinabandhu Chakraborty
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn Ltd. Vs. Jahan Khan
Union of India Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
National Sample Survey Organization Vs. Champa Properties Ltd.
Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd.
Pimpri Chinch-wad Municipal Corporation Vs. Gayatri Construction Company
Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat
State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd.
Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bharati Industries
State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.
Barelli Development Authority Vs. Ajai Pal Singh
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks. Mumbai & Ors. [1998 (8) SCC 1]
SupremeToday
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.