$

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 02.12.2025 Judgment uploaded on: As per digital signature~

+ FAO (COMM)155/2024 & CM APPL. 51616/2024 WOODLAND (AERO CLUB) PVT. LTD.

..... Appellant Versus M/S. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Abhijit Mittal, Mr. Anukalp Jain and Ms. Shaivya Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Agrawal, Mr. Akshay Chitkara, Ms. Sanjoli Gupta and Mr. Darpan Jain, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

JUDGMENT

VINOD KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the Act’)

impugning a judgment dated 31.05.2024 (hereinafter ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by learned District Judge (Commercial)-03, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘learned District Judge’) in the matter titled “Aero Club Vs. M/s. Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd. OMP (Comm) No. 32 of 2019”. The said petition was filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act challenging an Arbitral Award dated 30.8.2019 (hereinafter ‘the impugned award’). Learned District Judge Commercial Court upheld the impugned award passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

DISPUTE

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant entered into a lease agreement on 17.03.2011 with Ambience Development & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ‘ADIPL’) for Retail Space No. F-106, First Floor, Ambience Mall, Gurgaon, measuring 290.13 sq.mtr. The tenure of the lease was nine years, with a lock-in period of two years, as per the Agreement between the parties.

3. As per clause 11 of the Lease Agreement, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.22,84,922/- with ADIPL towards security for maintenance, electricity, water and other charges.

4. Subsequently, the appellant issued a Termination Letter dated 06.11.2015 proposing to vacate the premises with effect from 28.02.2016 and requested reconciliation of accounts from ADIPL. On 24.02.2016, the appellant informed ADIPL that an amount of Rs.18,73,812/- and Rs.5,62,144/- was recoverable by it after deducting Rs.1,51,034/-

towards late payment charges. On 05.03.2016 the appellant handed over the possession of the leased premises to ADIPL. The handover was duly acknowledged and the “store-takeover form” issued by ADIPL confirmed that the premises were surrendered.

5. The appellant claimed that ADIPL did not refund the security amount and as such legal notice was issued by the appellant on 17.08.2016 and was served upon the ADIPL. Vide reply dated 06.09.2016 ADIPL declined the demand alleging that the premises had suffered damage and that amount was liable to be adjusted towards restoration.

INVOCATION OF ARBITRATION

6. Through a letter dated 15.09.2016, the appellant invoked the arbitration under clause 28 of the agreement, which is reproduced as under:

“28. Any dispute or difference between the parties hereto concerning the construction, interpretation or application arising out of this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator' to be appointed by Ambience. Any decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.”

In this letter the petitioner requested the ADIPL to appoint any retired District Judge or Senior Advocate of Delhi as arbitrator. The letter is reproduced as under:

“To, DATED: 15.09.2018 Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, L-4, Green Park Ext,.

New Delhi -110016 Sub: Notice on behalf of the undersigned Mr. P.K. Sharma Authorised representative on behalf of M/s Aero Club seeking appointment of an· arbitrator as. per the arbitration clause in the agreement dated ''17-3- 2011 for adjudicating the dispute qua Security deposit amount of Rs

22,84,922/- along with interest@ 12 % P.A recoverable from you.

Sir, 1) I may refer to the agreement dated 17-3-2011, after execution of which the premises bearing no. F-106 on