Allowed

M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd. v. Asish Bhasin

Delhi HC21 Jan 2025FAO (COMM)/198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a Section 8 application seeking reference of a rent-recovery suit to arbitration under a lease deed arbitration clause. Both parties consented to arbitration; the High Court set aside the trial court order, allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit as not maintainable, and appointed a sole arbitrator under DIAC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; suit dismissed as not maintainable; claims referred to sole arbitrator Rishabh Kapur under DIAC.

M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs Asish Bhasin — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO (COMM) 198/2023, CM APPL. 50584/2023-Stay

¶4

M/S MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD. .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Anuj Agrawal, Advs

¶6

versus

¶7

ASISH BHASIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhupendra Tyagi, Adv appeared through VC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 21.01.2025

¶12

The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeks to assail the order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ 84/2021.

¶13

Vide the impugned order, the application preferred by the appellant/defendant under Section 8 of the Act praying that the plaintiff/respondent’s claim for recovery of enhanced rate of rent alongwith arrears thereof in terms of the settlement between the parties dated 23.10.2018 was required to be adjudicated through arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the registered Lease Deed dated 29.09.2016 was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the learned Trial Court rejected the appellant’s plea that the recovery suit preferred by the respondent was not maintainable.

¶14

Though learned counsel for the respondent had initially sought to

¶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 24/01/2025 at 16:24:06

¶16

oppose the appeal, after some arguments, he submits that in the interest of expeditious decision on his claims (prayers in the captioned suit), the respondent has no objection if the matter is referred to arbitration, for adjudication of the claims raised in the aforesaid suit. He further prays that this Court itself may appoint a sole arbitrator and direct that the arbitration proceedings will be held under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant has no objection to this request and joins the learned counsel for the respondent in praying that a sole arbitrator be appointed by this Court.

¶18

In the light of this stand taken by the parties, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the claims (prayers in the captioned suit) raised by the respondent in the aforesaid suit would be liable to be determined only through Arbitration in terms of the following clause as contained in the lease deed dated 29.09.2016:-

¶19

“3…………

¶20

(s) All disputes, differences and/ or claims arising out of or touching upon this lease Agreement, whether during its subsistence or thereafter, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the Arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Company. The Award given by such Sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Lessor and the Company.”

¶21

The appeal is, therefore, allowed by directing that the suit preferred by the respondent will stand dismissed as not maintainable with the claims as raised in the captioned suit to be decided through arbitration. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, we appoint Mr. Rishabh Kapur, Advocate (+91-7042181838) as the sole arbitrator for adjudication of

¶22

¶23

disputes which have arisen between the parties in relation to the lease deed dated 29.09.2016. The arbitration proceedings will be carried out under the aegis of the DIAC. Consequently, the fees of the learned sole arbitrator will be determined as per the Rules of the DIAC. Needless to state, before entering into the arbitration, the learned sole arbitrator will comply with provisions of Section 12 of the Act.

¶24

It is made clear that since this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it will be open for them to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned sole arbitrator, which will be decided in accordance with law.

¶25

A copy of this order be forwarded to the DIAC and the learned sole arbitrator.

¶26

REKHA PALLI, J

¶27

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶28

JANUARY 21, 2025/Ab

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 24/01/2025 at 16:24:06

M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd. v. Asish Bhasin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd. v. Asish Bhasin

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

Directorate of Education Vs Ramjas School

Aditi Grover Vs Rahi Grover

Pankaj Kumar Dahiya Vs Kiran Panwar

Gurudwara Shri Gur Singh Sabha Regd through Its General Secretary Vs Sh Ravi Prakash Sharma and Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Vs Ravi Prakash Sharma & Anr.

Anamika Prakashan Vs Vani Prakashan & Anr.