Dismissed

Girindra Global Hospitality v. Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd.

Kerala HC1 Mar 2023AR/176/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act seeking reference of a rent dispute to arbitration. The court held that since the applicant failed to file a counter-claim in the underlying rent control proceedings where the respondent sought arrears, and no arbitration agreement was invoked at that stage, there was no cause of action to refer the disput

What did the court decide?

Arbitration request dismissed as there is no cause of action for reference of the dispute to an arbitrator.

Girindra Global Hospitality Vs Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

1GIRINDRA GLOBAL HOSPITALITY
DOOR NO.36/518. SHORNUR ROAD P.O., THIRUVAMBADY,
THRISSUR-680022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
DHEERAJ THROUGH BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FRANCO
THOMAS, ASST.GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE, AGED 43,
S/O LATE K.T.THOMAS, PONMANI HOUSE, PULLAZHI P.O,
THRISSUR – 680012

¶8

2DHEERAJ
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O GIRIJA VALLABHAN, NARAYANANKATTIL HOUSE,
VENGINISSERRY P.O., PARALAM, THRISSUR-680575
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FRANCO
THOMAS, AGED 43, S/O LATE K.T.THOMAS, PONMANI HOUSE,
PULLAZHI P.O, THRISSUR – 680012

¶9

3GIRIJA VALLABHAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O KUNJU NAIR, NARAYANANKATTIL HOUSE,
VENGINISSERRY P.O., PARALAM, THRISSUR-680575.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FRANCO
THOMAS, AGED 43, S/O LATE K.T.THOMAS, PONMANI HOUSE,
PULLAZHI P.O, THRISSUR – 680012

¶10

4MRS.LATHA KALLENGATTU
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O GIRIJA VALLABHAN, NARAYANANKATTIL HOUSE,
VENGINISSERRY P.O., PARALAM, THRISSUR-680575.
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FRANCO
THOMAS, AGED 43, S/O LATE K.T.THOMAS, PONMANI HOUSE,
PULLAZHI P.O, THRISSUR – 680012

¶11

BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE
P.B.KRISHNAN
MANU VYASAN PETER
JOSEPH FREEMAN

¶12

¶13

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

MANAPPURAM HOTELS (P) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT
KURUPPAM ROAD, VELIYANNUR DESOM,
THRISSUR – 680001

¶16

BY ADVS.
SREEKALA KRISHNADAS
C.VIVEK(K/000304/1999)
ASHLY JAMES(K/001573/2018)
RENJINI RAMESHAN(K/001278/2022)
SARIKA S.(K/001341/2022)

¶17

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶18

FOLLOWING:

¶19

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the lessee for reference of dispute to an arbitration in view of the lease agreement dated 26.09.2018.

¶23

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was put into possession of the building by respondent – lessor for running a hotel on various terms and conditions. Since the applicant was in arrears of the rent, respondent - landlord instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In th is court proceedings the applicant has taken the similar stand as has been taken in the petition alleging that an extra amount of rent has been paid and therefore is entitled to refund of the same which can be only done by resolution of dispute through an Arbitration. It is in these circumstances, notice was sent followed by present petition under Section 11(6).

¶24

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent raised the objection qua maintainability on the ground that in a petition under Section 12, petitioner had not set up any counter claim which is permissible in law and therefore, cannot seek resolution of dispute through an arbitration as this is the relationship between the landlord and tenant, in view of the law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in Booz Allen Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. [(2011) 5 SCC 532].

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶28

Order of the Rent Controller dated 06.12.2022 reads

¶29

as under:

¶30

“Heard. Perused the statement filed by the respondent for non payment of arrears. I find no sufficient cause made out for non payment of rent. Hence proceedings further here to stands stopped. Respondent tenant shall put landlord in possession of petition schedule property.

¶31

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

Concededly, applicant/petitioner who was arrayed as respondent in the aforementioned proceedings would have set up the claim or counter claim wherein respondent-landlord sought arrears of rent. Having failed to do so, cannot turn around and seek the resolution of the dispute through arbitration.

¶34

For the reason aforementioned, I am of the view that there is no cause of action arisen for reference of the dispute for arbitrator. This petition is bereft of merits, accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

nak

AR NO. 176 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF AR 176/2022

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶43

Annexure-AA TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED, DATED 26-
09-2018 REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.2464/2018 OF
SRO, THRISSUR

¶44

Annexure-BA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12-07-
2022, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
RESPONDENT

¶45

Annexure-cA TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12-07-
2022, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF FATHIMATHUL
ZUHRA IN HER CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF
THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD

¶46

Annexure-DA TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED
12-07-2022

¶47

Annexure-EA TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED 22-08-
2022 IN ORIGINAL PETITION (RC) NO.153 OF
2022 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶48

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶49

ANNEXURE R1(A)TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN PLP NO.28/2021
ANNEXURE R1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS REFLECTED IN THE ECOURTS WITH
RESPECT TO RCP NO.83/2021

Girindra Global Hospitality v. Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girindra Global Hospitality v. Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance Jioinfocomm Ltd. Vs Suhara

Varghese Joy Vs Kadamakudy Grama Panchayat

The Ramapuram Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala

Vidyodaya Trust(Regd) Vs Official Liquidator

M.v.Dinesh Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S.Cherukulathu Agencies Vs State of Kerala