Disposed

Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. v. Rosemallow Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC2 Apr 2024ARB.P./112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under a terminated lease deed after the respondent declined concurrence in arbitration invocation. Existence of the arbitration clause was not denied; disputes over lease termination and possession were held arbitrable, and a retired Judge was appointed as sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mr Justice Jayant Nath (Retd.) appointed Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties.

Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rosemallow Hotels Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 112/2024

¶4

FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Tarun Singla and Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ROSEMALLOW HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 02.04.2024

¶9

I.A. 1925/2024 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

ARB.P. 112/2024

¶13

The Arbitration Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of the Arbitrator for adjudicating/deciding the inter se disputes between the parties.

¶14

It is submitted in the Petition that on 08.12.2022 the Registered Lease Deed was executed between the parties whereby the respondent took Property No. C-18, Friends Colony East, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi110065, on rent.

¶15

The respondent submits that there were various defaults/violations for which the petitioner issued a letter on 19.08.2023, calling upon the

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 11:49:27

¶17

respondent to rectify the defaults/violations on the part of the respondent, within 15 days of receipt of notice. The Reply dated 02.09.2023 was given by the respondent wherein the respondent admitted its defaults and breaches and sought time to remedy the same. Since the respondent failed to cure the violations/defaults, the Lease Deed was terminated vide Letter dated 03.09.2023, in terms of the Clause 5.1 of the Lease Deed dated 08.12.2022. Consequently, the petitioner encashed respondent’s Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 Crore, on 14.09.2023.

¶18

The respondent has failed to hand over the possession of the suit property even though the prescribed period under the Lease Deed has expired. The petitioner wrote a Letter dated 09.10.2023, requesting the respondent to hand over the possession, to which a reply dated 16.10.2023 has been given on behalf of the respondent, who has claimed the termination to be illegal and had declined to hand over the possession.

¶19

The petitioner thus issued a Notice of Invocation of Arbitration dated 26.10.2023 and sought the concurrence of the respondent for appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator, as suggested in the Notice, but the respondent declined to the appointment of the learned Arbitrator, as suggested by the petitioner vide its reply dated 20.11.2023. The present petition has thus, been filed for appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the inter se disputes between the parties.

¶20

The respondent has contested the petition by filing a reply wherein the objection has been taken that the petition is not filed through duly authorized person. Moreover, the Certificate under Section 65B is incorrect and is filed by unauthorised person. On merits, the contention of the petitioner, has also been denied.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 11:49:27

¶23

9. Submissions heard.

¶24

The existence of Arbitration Clause and the Lease Agreement has not been denied. There are arbitrable disputes raised in regard to the termination of the Lease Deed and handing over the possession by the respondent, of the suit properties. Therefore, Mr. Justice Jayant Nath (Retired), (M) 8527959494, is hereby appointed as Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

¶25

The parties are at liberty to raise their respective objections before the Arbitrator.

¶26

The fees of the learned Arbitrator would be fixed in accordance with the Schedule-IV of the Act, 1996 or as consented by the parties. 13. This is subject to the Arbitrator making necessary disclosure as under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1996 and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act, 1996.

¶27

Learned counsels for the parties are directed to contact the learned Arbitrator within one week of being communicated a copy of this Order to them by the Registry of this Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶30

APRIL 2, 2024/RS

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2024 at 11:49:27

Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. v. Rosemallow Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. v. Rosemallow Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S Agilus Diagnostics Limited Vs Sandip Kumar Saxena & Anr.

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd. Vs Kohinoor Power Pvt. Ltd.

Rohit Jain Vs Vikas Jain

Parnika Commercial Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Arshad Shah

M/S Nhpc Limited Vs M/S Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Anil Bijlani Vs Radhika Backliwal Narain