SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 37538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 16.09.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR O.P No. 936 of 2015 M/s. Rattha Holding Company Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Director Mr. Gurmeet Sidana No.37, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. . . .

Petitioner Versus

1. M/s. Global Talent Tract Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its CCDO Mr. Siva Sankar Kalive 'Reginsis' 6th Floor, Delta II Building, Giga Space Viman Nagar, Pune – 411 014.

2. Justice Mr.T. Somasundaram, Former Judge, High Court Madras, New No.1, 15th Street, H- Block, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. . . .

Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in so far as as against the Petitioner, reject the claims of the Respondent and allow the counter claim of the Petitioner;

Arbitrary remit to the arbitral Tribunal herein to decide the issue in accordance with the findings of this Hon'ble Court and award cost in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.

For Petitioner : Mr.K. Suresh for Mr.J. James For Respondents : Mr. B. Sundarshan for R1

ORDER

This original petition has been filed to set aside the award dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this original petition is as follows:

The claimant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of providing training and services to various IT companies. The petitioner herein is the landlord. Based on the representations, assurances and warranties of the petitioner, the respondent/claimant agreed to take on lease an office premises being part of the ground floor of the building described as Block 'C' having a built up area of 12,382 sq.ft earmarked as unit G1 along with 12 car parking slots, apart from a fully furnished air-conditioned cafeteria space of 500 sq.ft at the basement of the building.

3. Accordingly, the agreement came to be executed between the parties on 25.11.2010 incorporating all the details of the lease premises, rent, security deposit, rights and obligations of both the parties, termination of agreement, dispute resolution mechanism etc.

4. Apart from the above lease deed, a maintenance agreement was also entered between the parties on the same day for providing other maintenance like water, power, waste disposal etc for a sum of Rs.45,000/- for the period between 15.12.2010 to 13.12.2012 and at Rs.77,292 for the period effective from 01.04.2011.

5. However, in the month of April 2011, the petitioner has given possession of only the office space Unit G1 at the ground floor and promised to hand over possession of the Cafeteria space shortly stating that construction work for the same was under progress.

6. When the matter stood, the respondent/claimant required additional space for its office use, therefore, another lease deed dated 29.09.2011, came to be executed between the parties under which the petitioner had agreed to lease out office space of 4,250 sq.ft., ear marked as Unit F2 in the ground floor of Block 'C' along with 1,000 sq.ft area at the basement to be used as Cafeteria Food Court. The above space is in addition to the already leased out area of 12,382 sq.ft., under the first lease deed dated 25.11.2010. The rent fixed for the said office space of 4,250 sq.ft was at Rs.1,70,000/- per month from 20.07.2011 or from the date when possession was handed over in fully furnished condition by the petitioner. The period of lease was for five years. There shall be a lock-in period of 36 months from the lease commencement date.

The other clauses pertaining to the termination, arbitration, rights and liabilities of both the parties were all the same as mentioned in the previous lease deed dated 25.11.2010.

7. Further, the petitioner has provided space for cafeteria in 6th floor for time being. However as per the second contract, no cafeteria space has been provided. Therefore, the respondent has issued a letter to the petitioner dated 30.11.2012 seeking resolution of all pending issues including provision of furnished cafeteria space by December 2012. The petitioner has sent a reply notice dated 11.12.2012 admitting the default and delay in providing cafeteria space and gave technical reasons like seepage of water in the basement and further promised to rectify the same and keep it ready by the end of January, 2013. The respondent/claimant was constrained to issue notice to the petitioner on 08.01.2013, whereby, they terminated the Lease deeds forthwith and further informed the petitioner that they will be vacating the premises effective from 12.01.2013. However, the respondent's case is that the demand for rentals of the unexpired portion of the lock-in period is illegal, inasmuch as there is no obligation on the part of the respondent/claimant to pay such rentals if the Lessor committed breach of the terms of the lease deeds. According to the respondent/claimant, since the non provision of cafeteria space is an admitted breach, there is no liability on the part of the respondent/claimant to pay any rental for the unexpir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top