The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to give effect to the arbitration agreement and resolve any conflict in favor of arbitration.

Headnote:
Arbitration Clause - Lease Dispute - The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties based on the existence of an arbitration agreement and the interpretation of the arbitration clause. The court held that the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration was clear and any conflict between the jurisdiction of civil courts and the arbitration agreement had to be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising from a lease agreement.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that an arbitration clause existed between the parties and the issue of interpretation of the clause could be decided by an arbitral tribunal. The court held that the conflict, if any, between the jurisdiction of civil courts and the arbitration agreement had to be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Issues: Existence of an arbitration agreement, interpretation of the arbitration clause, and appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of inquiry in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration, and the need to give effect to the arbitration agreement.
Final Decision: The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and allowed the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the „A&C Act‟) has been filed seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the building bearing Municipal No. 68, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, which he had leased out to the respondent company for a period of 15 years w.e.f. 01.08.2008 vide Lease Deed dated 07.08.2008. The respondent is stated to have defaulted in payment of monthly rent which has led to accumulation of huge arrears. The Lease Deed is also stated to have expired by efflux of time on 31.07.2023. The petitioner has served legal notices upon the respondent seeking payment of arrears of rent and calling upon the respondent to ARB.P. 1007/2023 Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed handover the vacant possession of the leased premises, however, the respondent is neither paying the rent/occupation charges nor handing over the possession of the leased premises to the petitioner. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner vide letter dated 12.08.2023, invoked the arbitration clause contained in the Lease Deed and sought consent of the respondent for resolution of disputes by arbitration in accordance with the rules of Delhi International Arbitration Centre.

Respondent is stated to have not replied to the said notice.

3. Consequently, the petitioner seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator, in terms of Clause 26(e) of the Lease Deed, which is reproduced below:

“26. Lastly it is agreed: -

(a)…(d)

(e) in case of any dispute arising between the parties, matter will be referred to and adjudicated upon only by the courts at Delhi/New Delhi which alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter/s. That the disputes if any arising from the present agreement would be referred to Arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. "

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made in the petition and disputes the validity of the arbitration clause. It is submitted that Clause 26(e) is divided in two parts viz. the principal first part - clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts at Delhi and the secondary second part – arbitration clause. It is submitted that there is a direct conflict between the said two parts, and in terms of the settled law the principal first clause will prevail and supersede the secondary clause. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon decisions in Sahebzada Mohd. Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, [Digitally Signed], Radha Sundar

1960 SCC OnLine SC 107 : (1960) 3 SCR 604 ARB.P. 1007/2023 Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim², Sunil Kumar Chandra v. Spire Techpark (P) Ltd.³, and Blue Star Ltd. v. Rahul Saraf⁴. It is submitted that the only remedy of the petitioner is to approach civil courts at Delhi.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists no inconsistency between the stipulation conferring jurisdiction upon courts in Delhi, and the arbitration agreement incorporated in Clause 26(e). It is submitted that the intention of the parties is manifestly clear to refer the disputes arising under the Lease Deed to arbitration. It is submitted that the stipulation regarding jurisdiction of civil courts in Delhi is with regard to the court‟s supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration. Any other interpretation, it is submitted, would render the arbitration clause superfluous and otiose, which in terms of settled arbitration jurisprudence, has to be avoided. Reliance has also been placed on English decisions in Melford Capital Partners (Holdings) LLP v. Wingfield Digby⁵ and Surrey County Council v. Suez Recycling and Recovery Surrey⁶. Reliance has also been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd. v. Jade Elevator Components, [Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document