Disposed¶27

Gujral Estates Private Limited v. S and a Hospitality & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Mar 2025ARB.P./2136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court arbitration petition; appointment of Sole Arbitrator by consent; Clause 36 arbitration clause; lease/restaurant agreement dated 20.02.2019; commercial premises New Delhi; security deposit cheque Rs. 3,71,165; rent arrears claim Rs. 32,00,400; Section 12 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 disclosures; arbitrator fee Schedule of A&C Act; equal sharing of arbitrator fee and costs; Gujral Estates Private Limited v. S and A Hospitality; Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav; ARB.P. 2136/2024; 17.03.2025; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. S.C. Malik, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to Section 12 disclosures, with fee per the Schedule of the A&C Act and costs shared equally. ¶27

Gujral Estates Private Limited Vs S and a Hospitality & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Agreement dated 20.02.2019, which contains an arbitration clause (Clause 36). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court appointed Mr. S.C. Malik, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi (Retd.), as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings subject to furnishing to the parties the requisite disclosures required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with the IVth Schedule of the A&C Act, or as may otherwise be agreed between the parties and the Sole Arbitrator.ratio¶23
The parties shall share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral cost equally.ratio¶24
All rights and contentions of the parties relating to claims/counterclaims are kept open, to be decided by the Sole Arbitrator on their merits in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gujral Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. S and A Hospitality & Ors., ARB.P. 2136/2024 (Delhi High Court, 17.03.2025, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.): Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 36 of the Agreement dated 20.02.2019 for running a restaurant in commercial premises (seat New Delhi; mutually appointed Sole Arbitrator; Delhi courts have exclusive jurisdiction). The respondent had issued a cheque of Rs. 3,71,165/- towards 2 months' security deposit; after the premises were vacated, the petitioner claimed Rs. 32,00,400/- due, excluding the security deposit. Settlement efforts having failed, both parties consented to arbitration. The Court appointed Mr. S.C. Malik, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), as Sole Arbitrator, subject to Section 12 A&C Act disclosures; fee per the Schedule of the A&C Act or as agreed, with fee and costs shared equally; claims/counterclaims and contentions left open for adjudication on merits. Petition disposed of.

¶1

$~O-3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ARB.P. 2136/2024

¶4

GUJRAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Mr. Alok Prakash and Mr. B. Shekhar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

S AND A HOSPITALITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Mr. Mohd. Bilal, Ms. Priya Singh and Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 17.03.2025

¶11

On the last date of hearing i.e. 03.02.2025, the Court noted that there seems to be a possibility of an amicable settlement and accordingly, the hearing was deferred till today.

¶12

Today when the matter is called out, learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly state that endeavours were made but they could not fructify in any result. They, however, agreed to the appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶13

The facts of these cases indicate that the parties had entered into an agreement dated 20.02.2019 for running a restaurant in a commercial premise. The respondent issued a cheque dated 20.02.2019 of Rs. 3,71,165/as the security deposit of 2 months' rent of the commercial premises, to the petitioner. Various disputes arose when the possession of the premises was vacated by the respondents and was handed over to the petitioner. As per

¶14

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 22/03/2025 at 17:39:55

¶15

the petitioner, the respondents further made a promise that the due amount of rent shall be paid in the near future, but the same has not been paid till date. According to the petitioner, Rs. 32,00,400/- is due to be paid by the respondents excluding the security deposit already paid by the respondents. Clause 36 of the Agreement specifically provides for the dispute resolution mechanism to be Arbitration and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶16

“ All or any dispute arising out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms of this Lease Deed including the interpretation and validity of the terms thereof and the respective rights and obligation of the parties shall be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which the same shall be settled only through the arbitration. The arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or any statutory amendments/modification thereto for the time being in force. The seat of arbitration proceedings shall be at an appropriate location in New Delhi by a Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed mutually by the Lessor and Lessee and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the Parties.

¶17

The courts at Delhi alone shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising out of or relating to the present transaction to the exclusion of all other courts.

¶18

That this Lease Deed and the rights and obligations of the parties under or arising out of this Deed shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the law of India.”

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the Court appoints Mr. S.C. Malik, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi (Retd.) (Mob No.: +91 9910384635, Email: [email protected]) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

¶20

The Sole Arbitrator may proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing to the parties, requisite disclosures as required under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “ A&C Act ”).

¶21

The Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee in accordance with the IV^th

¶22

¶23

Schedule of the A&C Act; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the parties and the learned Sole Arbitrator.

¶24

The parties shall share the arbitrator's fee and arbitral cost, equally.

¶25

All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counterclaims are kept open, to be decided by the Sole Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law.

¶26

Needless to say, nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the controversy between the parties. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved. Let the copy of the said order be sent to the newly appointed Arbitrator through the electronic mode as well.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶28

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶29

MARCH 17, 2025/P/MJO

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶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 22/03/2025 at 17:39:55

Gujral Estates Private Limited v. S and a Hospitality & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujral Estates Private Limited v. S and a Hospitality & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Shashi Mittal Vs Mrs. Mamta Mttal and Ors.

Selz Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cepham Milk Specialities Limited & Anr.

Sh Santokh Singh (Since Deceased) through His Legal Heir Mr.Jagpreet Singh Vs Smt. Surjeet Kaur (Since Deceased) through Her Legal Heirs a.Parvinder Singh (Since Deceased) Throu

M/S. Enzymes Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.

M/S Lpr Co. Private Limited Vs M/S Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Limited

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. Vs Varinder Singh & Anr.