M/s Mr Developers v. Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2025ARBT/73/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration application; appointment of arbitrator; lease-deed dated 22.10.2021; godown landlord vs tenants; Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd.; Merabo Labs Private Ltd. Jaipur; Clause 11.8 dispute resolution mechanism; vacation notice; dues not settled; notice dated 23.01.2025; no consent to proposed arbitrator; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 7; Jaspreet Singh J.; notice issued to respondents; service steps within one week; listed week commencing 27.10.2025; rent Rs.1,70,000 and Rs.6,80,000; Prashant Singh Gaur.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: notice ordered to be issued to the respondent in both applications, steps for service to be completed within one week, and the petitions listed in the week commencing 27.10.2025; appointment of the arbitrator not yet decided. ¶¶16

M/s Mr Developers Vs Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether an arbitrator ought to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising between the petitioner-landlord and the two respondent-lessee companies under the lease-deeds dated 22.10.2021 containing the dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 11.8, following the respondents' non-response to the petitioners' notice dated 23.01.2025.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court directed that notice be issued to the respondent in both Arbitration Application Nos. 73 and 74 of 2025.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to take steps for service on the respondent in both petitions within one week.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

Both petitions were listed in the week commencing 27.10.2025; the substantive question of appointing an arbitrator remained open at this stage.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 7 — Jaspreet Singh, J. (order dated September 8, 2025). Civil Misc. Arbitration Applications Nos. 73 and 74 of 2025, filed jointly by M/S Mr Developers (landlord; applicant in both, represented by Prashant Singh Gaur) against tenants Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd. (App. No.73) and Merabo Labs Private Ltd. Jaipur (App. No.74). Both lessee companies, managed by the same set of Directors, took separate lease-deeds dated 22.10.2021 — 10000 sq.ft. of the godown at Rs.1,70,000/- and 40000 sq.ft. at Rs.6,80,000/- — with a dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 11.8. A vacation notice was issued only by Brisam Retail; both companies vacated the entire premises without settling dues, and Merabo Labs gave no vacation notice. The petitioners' notice dated 23.01.2025 raising claims and seeking concurrence on a proposed arbitrator drew no response, whereupon they invoked the Court for appointment of an arbitrator. At this first hearing the Court only ordered notice to the respondents in both applications, directed completion of service steps within one week, and listed the matters in the week commencing 27.10.2025; the arbitrator-appointment question is undecided. No statute or precedent is expressly cited in the judgment text.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 73 of 2025

¶3

M/S Mr Developers .....Applicant(s) Versus Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

¶4

ALONG WITH

¶5

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 74 of 2025

¶6

M/S Mr Developers Lucknow Thru Partner Atul Goel .....Applicant(s)
Versus
Merabo Labs Private Ltd. Jaipur .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashant Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No.- 7

¶7

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

The instant two petitions have been preferred by the petitioners, who is the landlord of the godown. About 10000 sq. ft. of the said godown was leased out to the respondent of the Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.73 of 2025, whereas 40000 sq. ft. was leased out to the Merabo Labs Private Ltd., who is the respondent in Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.74 of 2025.

¶10

It has also been stated that both the companies, who were lessees are

¶11

ARBT No. 73 of 2025

¶12

¶13

managed by the same set of Directors, hence, two separate lease-deeds were executed on 22.10.2021. The rent for the godown measuring 10000 sq.ft., which was leased out to Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd., was Rs.1,70,000/whereas the lease rent for 40000 sq.ft. area leased out to Merabo Labs Private Ltd., was Rs.6,80,000/-. Various other stipulations and components were agreed between the parties and incorporated in the lease. It also provided for a dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 11.8.

¶14

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents for reasons best known to them sent a notice informing the petitioners regarding vacation of the premises, but this was issued only by Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd., which had 10000 sq.ft. area under the lease, however, in furtherance of the said notice, both the companies vacated the entire portion without settling the dues, apart from the fact that no notice to vacate was issued by Merabo Labs Private Ltd.

¶15

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the dispute had arisen and the petitioners by means of a notice dated 23.01.2025 wherein claims were raised and the petitioners had also sought consent of the respondents to concur on the name of the proposed arbitrator, however, despite the service, it is stated that there was no response from the respondents, hence, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant two petitions for appointment of arbitrator.

¶16

Let notice be issued to the respondent in both the aforesaid two petitions, as aforesaid.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps for service on the respondent, in both the aforesaid petition, within a period of one week from today.

¶18

List in week commencing 27.10.2025 .

¶19

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶20

September 8, 2025

¶21

Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/s Mr Developers v. Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Mr Developers v. Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudeep Vidyarth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infra. and Industrial Development Lko. and Another

The Production Manager, M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Jagdishpur, Dist. Sultanpur and Another Vs Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra

Focus Computeeh Pvt. Thru . Authroised Signatoy Niteesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Deptt. Infrastr. and Industr. Develo. Lko. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

C/M Shri Tirupati Siksha Prasar Samiti Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Susheel Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Neeraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Arti Mehrotra and Another vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Financial Service Thru. Secy. and 2 Others