Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saral Srivastava, J.
Nagar Nigam – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Sharad Rohtagi and Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4745 of 2019
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Arbitration Clause - Property Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - 2014 (138) L.I.C. 901 - The court discussed the lease deed, its expiration, and the dispute over possession. The court analyzed the arbitration clause in the lease deed and its applicability under Section 8 of the Act, 1996. The court found that the stipulation referred to as an arbitration agreement lacked the necessary ingredients of an arbitration agreement, and thus, the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 was misconceived and not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant over the possession of a leased property. The lease deed had expired, and the defendant's possession was contested as unauthorized and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the stipulation referred to as an arbitration agreement lacked the necessary ingredients of an arbitration agreement, and thus, the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 was misconceived and not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the arbitration clause in the lease deed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the dispute fell within the scope of the alleged arbitration clause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the stipulation referred to as an arbitration agreement lacked the necessary ingredients of an arbitration agreement, and thus, the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 was misconceived and not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it lacking in merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut in Original Suit No.539 of 2011 (Dr. Jagat Narayan Vs. Nagar Nigam, Meerut) rejecting the application 28Ga of the petitioner for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1996’) and order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Meerut in Civil Revision No.05 of 2015 (Nagar Nigam Meerut Vs.Sharad Rohtagi) dismissing the revision of the petitioner.
3. The facts in brief are that Original Suit No.539 of 2011 has been instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff/respondents) against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant/petitioner') alleging that by a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2013, predecessor in title of the plaintiffs/respondents, Late Haji Sheikh Alauddin, son of Late Shaikh Gulam Muhiuddin of Lalkurti Bazar, Meerut had let out part of land measuring about 11 Bighas, 16 Biswas pukhta situated at Budhana Gate, Meerut, formally known as ‘Barfkhana’ to the then Municipal Board, Meerut and now occupied under Gymkhana Maidan, Bachcha Park and Ladies Park under the terms and conditions stipulated in the said lease deed on payment of Rs.1/-per annum by the then Municipal Board to the lessor Late Haji Sheikh Alauddin. Besides others stipulation in the lease deed, the lease was for the term of 99 years commencing w.e.f. 01.04.1911. Another relevant clause of the lease deed in the instant case is that the lease shall be renewable at the option of the lessor at the expiration of original term of 99 years on same term for a period of not less than 30 years. If on the determination of the lease, the lessor shall not elect to renew the lease, it shall be the duty of the lessee to make over the land hereby demised, to the lessor in a condition not worse than its condition at present, but it shall not be bound in that case to restore any trees that may have been removed or otherwise have ceased to exist.
4. According to the plaint, the defendant/respondent i.e., Municipal Corporation (Nagar Nigam), Meerut now represents the former Municipal Board, Meerut which is bound by the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 18.06.2013. It is further stated that Late Haji Sheikh Allauddin, son of Sheikh Gulam Mohiuddin had transferred his rights in the land to Sheikh Manzoor Mohiuddin, son of Sheikh Gaush Mohiuddin of Lal Kurti, Meerut by registered Gift Deed dated 13.06.1939/21.06.1939 registered on 22.06.1941, therefore, Sheikh Manzoor Mohiuddin stepped into the shoes of original lessor. Subsequently the said Sheikh Manzoor Mohiuddin made an Exchange Deed with Gulzari Mal, the successor of plaintiff/respondent in respect of 2/3rd portion of the said leased land vide registered deed dated 11.07.1945 and transferred the remaining 1/3rd share in the said leased land to the said Gulzari Mal vide registered sale deed dated 18.04.1949.
5. In para-8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents had stated the details as to how the property has devolved on the plaintiffs/respondents. It is further stated that Late Gulzari Mal (predecessors of respondents) in the year1978 informed the then Municipal Board about his right to realize rent from the Municipal Board, Meerut under the said lease deed dated 18.06.1913 (herein-after referred to as the 'lease deed'). In reply to the said letter, the then Municipal Board, Meerut vide letter dated 179/ME/PWD dated 26.07.1978 asked for some clarification regarding his ownership and rights and other particulars. It is further stated that Sri Awadh Bihari Lal, son of Lat
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a stipulation to be considered an arbitration agreement under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must fulfill the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of the lease agreement and the cessation of the jural relationship between the parties rendered the arbitration agreement unnec....
Disputes capable of being adjudicated by the Civil Court are generally amenable to arbitration, unless expressly excluded. The importance of appointing an eligible arbitrator was also emphasized.
The arbitrator must address allegations of fraud and collusion affecting the enforceability of a contract; failure to do so results in an award being set aside for patent illegality.
The absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties precludes arbitration proceedings, and the moratorium under the IBC can bar such proceedings if jurisdiction is lacking.
Disputes regarding land ownership and mutations can be arbitrated under an existing agreement, reaffirming the limited role of courts in arbitration matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the designation of a place of arbitration as the 'venue' in an arbitration clause indicates the intention to anchor arbitral proceedings to th....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
