Disposed

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited v. M/S Arihant Distributors

Delhi HC10 Jan 2024ARB.P./349/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes over non-payment of rent and return of a leased vehicle. Respondent did not respond despite service. Court referred disputes to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator under DIAC aegis.

What did the court decide?

Disputes referred to arbitral tribunal; V. K. Gupta, Former Principal District & Sessions Judge, appointed Sole Arbitrator; arbitration under DIAC.

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Arihant Distributors — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 349/2023

¶4

M/S LEASE PLAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhilesh Pradhan, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S ARIHANT DISTRIBUTORS ..... Respondent

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 10.01.2024

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising between the parties vide lease deed agreement bearing SME 300176 dated 16.09.2018 vide which the petitioner has leased out a vehicle/car TATA ACE HT HIGH DECK DSL registration bearing No UP37AT3792 on a monthly rental of Rs.11,984/-. Learned counsel submits that the respondent failed to pay rent charges as well as returned the vehicle.

¶13

It has further submitted that the Lease Agreement contains the arbitration clause 10.2 which provides that the place of arbitration would be at Delhi. The said clause reads as under;

¶14

"10.2 (i) Arbitration: All disputes, differences, claims and demands arising under or pursuant to or concerning this Agreement shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or

¶15

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 02/07/2025 at 00:13:27

¶16

any statutory amendment or re amendment or re-enactment thereof, subject to following rules:

¶17

(a) Arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by LPIN

¶18

(b) The language of arbitration shall be English and place of Arbitration shall be Delhi.

¶19

(c) The respective costs of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties in the first instance; however, the successful party shall be entitled to the costs of arbitration including legal and recovery costs.

¶20

(d) The award shall be a speaking award and shall be binding on the parties."

¶21

The respondent is stated to be a proprietorship concern. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration vide notice dated 31.12.2022 which was duly served upon the respondent. However, the respondent did not respond to the same. Pursuant to this, the present petition was filed. The respondent has also duly been served in the present petition. However, the respondent has not responded to the same. The claim amount is stated to be Rs.11,04,271/-.

¶22

Since there is a lease agreement containing an arbitration clause and the arbitration seat is at Delhi. Considering the facts and consent of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶23

i) The disputes between the parties under the said agreement are referred to the arbitral tribunal.

¶24

ii) Mr. Mr. V. K. Gupta, Former Principal District & Sessions

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 02/07/2025 at 00:13:27

¶27

Judge, (Mob. No.991038470) has been appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. iii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi hereinafter, referred to as the „DIAC‟). The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of Schedule IV of the A&C Act or as the parties may agree.

¶28

iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claims, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

¶29

vi) The parties shall approach the learned arbitrator within two weeks from today.

¶30

In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.

¶31

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶32

JANUARY 10, 2024 Pallavi

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 02/07/2025 at 00:13:27

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited v. M/S Arihant Distributors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited v. M/S Arihant Distributors

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

Tanmay Virambhai Patel @ Tanmay Patel Vs Tanish Agriscience Pvt. Ltd.

Tanmay Virambhai Patel @ Tanmay Patel Vs Tanish Agriscience Pvt. Ltd.

Xpandr Ventures India Private Limited Vs Goomo Orbit Corporate Leisure Travels (I) Private Limited & Ors.

Hitachi Payments Services Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Vs Jasmeet Singh Marwah

M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited Vs M/S Aarna International

Shalaka Infra-Tech(I) Private Limited Vs Airports Authority of India