Dismissed

Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. Swati Bhattacharajee

Bombay HC14 Mar 2023ARBAP/344/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Arbitration Application was dismissed. The single-judge bench found the claim for a security deposit was baseless, as the lease agreement was entirely silent on any such payment and the claim amount was not supported by evidence or the agreement terms.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration Application dismissed on the ground of no cause of action due to the lease agreement being silent on the security deposit.

Bell Finvest India Ltd. Vs Swati Bhattacharajee — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

40.arbap.344.19.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.

¶4

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2019

¶5

Bell Finvest India Ltd. ..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Swati Bhattacharajee..Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vinit J. Mehta, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Rajdeep Lahiri, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:MARCH 14, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the Applicant and

¶13

Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the Respondent. By consent of parties

¶14

Arbitration Application is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

¶15

2. Perused the record and pleadings of the case with the

¶16

assistance of both learned Advocates.

¶17

3. Mr. Mehta has made a valiant effort to invoke appointment

¶18

of Arbitrator, however the effort has failed.

¶19

4. There is no dispute about the following facts:-

¶20

(i) Applicant was a Lessee of a commercial office situated

¶21

on the first floor belonging to the Respondent – Lessor;

¶22

(ii) Lease Agreement was entered into on 13.12.2017 for a

¶23

1 of 3

¶24

40.arbap.344.19.doc

¶25

tenure of 36 months. Pursuant to the demise of the
lease agreement, the subject office was vacated and
returned back to the Respondent.

¶26

5. Mr. Mehta would submit that arbitration is sought to be invoked in view of a claim of Applicant against Respondent with respect to non return of the security deposit paid by Applicant – Lessee to the Respondent – landlord, which is outstanding. He would submit that Applicant has paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- as refundable security deposit. Such averment is made in paragraph No.5 of the Application.

¶27

6. I have perused the Lease Agreement dated 13.12.2017 annexed at Exhibit - ‘B’ page No.16 to the Application.

¶28

7. On reading of the Lease Agreement, it is seen that there is not a whisper whatsoever about the Lessee paying any security deposit of any denomination to the Lessor in the entire agreement. In so far as the amount of Rs.9,000/- is concerned, I find that the amount of Rs.9,000/- exchanged between parties is in respect of the Lessee agreeing to pay to the Lessor rent of Rs.9,000/- per month and nothing more than that. While arguing the matter, at one point of time, Mr. Mehta submitted that the outstanding Security Deposit was in excess of Rs. 3 lakhs.

¶29

8. Though, Mr. Mehta would argue and pursued me to look

¶30

2 of 3

¶31

40.arbap.344.19.doc

¶32

into the arbitration clause, I am not inclined to look into it unless I am
satisfied on the issue of any security deposit having exchanged hands
between the parties under the agreement. Since the Lease Agreement
is completely silent about the same, there is no cause of action for
which the Arbitration needs to be invoked. The notice of invocation
and Application, save and except seeking to invoke arbitration, is
completely silent on the cause of action. No receipt of the alleged
security deposit is also shown to me. Hence, I do not find any
substance in this Arbitration Application.

¶33

9. For the above reasons, Arbitration Application is dismissed.

¶34

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶35

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2023.03.21 19:04:46 +0530

¶36

3 of 3

Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. Swati Bhattacharajee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bell Finvest India Ltd. v. Swati Bhattacharajee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Capt. Derrick Vaz and Anr. vs Vikram Singh Ram Singh @ Vikram Ram Singh

Yashpal Bhalla vs Tattva and Mittal Lifespaces Pvt. Ltd.

Yogesh Premji Visaria vs Rajlaxmi Developers

Aksentt Tech Service Limited vs Mahaonline Limited

Darryl Bosco Pereira Vs Esarul Haq Usmani and 2 Ors. and Farhat Usmani and 1B to 1E (Resp)

Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises vs Marlex Appliances Pvt. Ltd.