Allowed

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited v. M/S Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023ARBAP/38/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the applicant's request to appoint a sole arbitrator, holding the respondent's objections unsustainable and directing immediate appointment.

What did the court decide?

-appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retired Judge) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Pace Tel… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Arbitration Application No.38/2022

¶3

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited, (A Company Incorporated Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956) Having Its Registered Office At 402-A, Fourth Floor, Plot -21, Panchratna, Mama Parmanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai400004, Maharashtra And Corporate Office - Sector B, House No. 4, Asram Marg, Durgapura Bypass, Pwd Chowki, Tonk Raod, Jaipur 302018, Through Its Authorised Signatory Rajeev Chaddha.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd., (A Company Incorporated Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956) Having Its Registered Office At D-13/1, Model Town-Iii, Delhi 110009

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.Vartika Mehra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Prashant Sharma, Adv. for
	Mr.Rahul Kamwar, Adv.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶10

Order

¶11

19/05/2023

¶12

The instant arbitration application has been under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act of 1996’) for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant Ms.Vartika Mehra submitted that the applicant is a registered company and owner of commercial complex, known by the name of ‘Jaipur Centre’ situated at B-2 Bypass Jaipur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent desirous of establishing its business in the commercial

¶15

(2 of 4) [ARBAP-38/2022]

¶16

complex, approached the applicant and as such, leave and license agreement was executed on 05.09.2017 for showroom No.G-03, situated in the complex.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that possession of the showroom was handed over to the respondent on 04.08.2017 for carrying out fittings etc. and license period was to begin from 04.10.2017 with lock-in period of three years.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent failed to make any payment towards license fee and other misc. charges as per the terms of the agreement and also failed to commence its operations.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that request was made to the respondent to start the business and also to pay the amount agreed between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that ultimately the applicant had to terminate the agreement by sending a legal notice dated 28.03.2018 and further possession of the premises was also taken by the applicant on 09.06.2018.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent did not make the payment and as such, loss was caused to the applicant and the applicant ultimately had to send a notice to the respondent invoking Clause 15 of the agreement relating to arbitration.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that the respondent refused to appoint an Arbitrator and as such, the applicant is constrained to approach this Court.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that reply to the application has been filed

¶24

(3 of 4) [ARBAP-38/2022]

¶25

and there is no breach on the part of the respondent, as has been alleged in the application.

¶26

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant since did not comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and as such, the respondent has outstanding amount against the applicant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the parties submit that this Court considering, the dispute between both the parties relating to claim and counterclaim, may exercise its power for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

This Court finds that if the respondent has any objection or any claim in respect of any amount due against the applicant, the respondent is also free to raise his claim/counter claim before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator will obviously decide the claim and counter-claim in accordance with law after giving proper opportunities to the parties.

¶30

This Court finds that the objections raised by the respondent are not sustainable and as such, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed.

¶31

This Court, accordingly, allows the present arbitration application filed by the applicant while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retired Judge), L-44, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost

¶32

[ARBAP-38/2022]

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶35

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retired Judge), L-44, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶36

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶37

Himanshu Soni/40

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited v. M/S Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited v. M/S Pace Tel Systems 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

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.

Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office Vs Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Inceptra Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Iconic Fashion Retailing Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Globus Spirits Limited, Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited

M/S Choudhary Enterprises Vs Union of India Thr Gen Manager and Anr.

Goyal Arts Partner Rakesh Goyal S/O Shree Mani Shankar Goyal Vs Anu Overseas India