BOMBAY HIGH COURT
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Discovery Properties & Hotels Pvt.Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) —Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 24 of 2009
Decided on 16.07.2010
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—The Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. By a letter dated 10 December 2007, the Respondent accepted the offer of the Petitioner for the allotment of a plot at Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, for the construction of a Five Star Hotel. The balance amount payable, apart from the earnest money of Rs. 2.5 crores, was Rs.78.28 crores.
3. The Respondent by its letter dated 3 February 2009 sought the payment of the balance lease premium failing which it was stated that the agreement would be liable to be terminated by forfeiting the earnest money deposit and twenty five percent of the agreed lease premium. The Petitioner by a letter dated 12 March 2009 recorded that it had paid a sum of Rs.39.14 crores towards the first instalment of the bid consideration. However, according to the Petitioner, it had agreed to take up the project on a representation by the Respondent that certain “milestones” would be achieved by the Respondent including the construction of an International Airport at Navi Mumbai; a Fly Over adjacent to the plot; the setting up of a Special Economic Zone at Navi Mumbai; the completion of certain road projects and the setting up of a Central Park and golf course. The Petitioner stated that it was ready and willing to make payment of the second instalment amounting to Rs.39.14 crores only if the Respondent completed some or all the milestones, referred to earlier and subject to the grant of additional F.S.I. The Petitioner also sought permission to carry out a mixed development project. In terms of Clause 44 of the Letter of Allotment, which according to the Petitioner, contemplates appointment of the Managing Director of the Respondent as Arbitrator, the Petitioner nominated Mr.G.S. Gill, Managing Director of the Respondent as Arbitrator. This was followed by a letter dated 12 March 2009.
4. In the Petition under Section 11(6) and in the affidavit in rejoinder, the Petitioner has relied upon clause 44 of the Letter of Allotment and clause 41 of the bid document as containing an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration. Clause 41 of the bid document provides as follows :
“41. Interpretation of general terms & conditions for disposal of plots of land.
In case of dispute as regards interpretation of the General terms and conditions of disposal of plots of land and of the invitation of offer or any thing therefrom, the final decision rests with Managing Director of CIDCO and will be binding on all parties as the award of Arbitrator.”
Clause 44 of the Letter of Allotment is in the following terms:
“44. Interpretation of general terms and conditions for disposal of plots of land In case of dispute as regards interpretation of the General terms and conditions of disposal of plots of land and of the invitation of offer or any thing therefrom, the final decision rests with Managing Director of CIDCO and will be binding on all parties as the award of Arbitrator.”
5. The case of the Petitioner is that an arbitration agreement can be spelt out from these two clauses. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Bhagwan Devi v. Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, (2006) 131 Delhi Law Times 411. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent that in a judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Mrs.Mini Radhakrishnan v. CIDCO, Arbitration Application No.1 of 2001 decided on 3.8.2001 a similar clause was construed. It was urged that the Learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd., AIR 1999 S.C. 899 held that such a clause would not constitute an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration.
6. Clause 44 of the Letter of Allotment provides that disputes as regards the interpretation of the general terms and conditions of th
Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander
Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.