Full Text
Translation output
$-6
:F
IN THE HIGH COURT
ARB.P. 26812012
MANJU MADAN
Thlough
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. S anj eev Mahajan, Adv.
V
VEISUS
T/I/S BARISTA COFFEE COMPANY LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sahil Chawla, Adv. for Mr.Rishi
Kapoor, Adv.
:F
IN THE HIGH COURT
ARB.P. 26812012
MANJU MADAN
Thlough
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. S anj eev Mahajan, Adv.
V
VEISUS
T/I/S BARISTA COFFEE COMPANY LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sahil Chawla, Adv. for Mr.Rishi
Kapoor, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
18.03.2013
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Arbination and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appoinf,nent of an
Arbihator.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the co-owner and landlady of the properly being 33, Khan Market, New Delhi. She had been authorized by'the co-owners i.e. her son and daughter to deal with the first and second floor of the said property. The petitioner tlu'ough her proprietorship concern ltzl/s M.M. Enterprises had entered into a Licence
Agreement dated 9tl' February, 2006 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 10tl' Februuy,2006 with the respondent company. The sarne were to be detennined/tenninated on 31$ January, 2012. On 29tl' Novernber, 2OlI,it was infotrned to the respondent cornpany that the petitioner would not be extending the licence agleetnents and they were required to remove the belongings and hand over the possession to the petitioner on or before 1"
%
{
2013:DHC:8054
18.03.2013
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
11(6) of the Arbination and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appoinf,nent of an
Arbihator.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the co-owner and landlady of the properly being 33, Khan Market, New Delhi. She had been authorized by'the co-owners i.e. her son and daughter to deal with the first and second floor of the said property. The petitioner tlu'ough her proprietorship concern ltzl/s M.M. Enterprises had entered into a Licence
Agreement dated 9tl' February, 2006 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 10tl' Februuy,2006 with the respondent company. The sarne were to be detennined/tenninated on 31$ January, 2012. On 29tl' Novernber, 2OlI,it was infotrned to the respondent cornpany that the petitioner would not be extending the licence agleetnents and they were required to remove the belongings and hand over the possession to the petitioner on or before 1"
%
{
2013:DHC:8054
{
\l
February, 20L2. The respondent agreed to vacate the sarne. The petitioner had on earlier occasions informed the respondent that as a reason of unauthorized construction in the said properly by the respondent and failure to remove the sarng the petitioner w'as receiving notices fiorn NDMC asking the petitioner to pay the darnages charges. The notices were forwarded to the respondent with the request to rernove the unauthorized conshuction and pay the darnages.
It is stated in the petition that by notice dated 16tl' January,2012 the petitioner had asked the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction and hand over the vacant peaceful possession to the petitioner. Howeve1, instead of handing over possession of the first and second floor of property
No. 33, Khan Marke! New Delhi, in reply dated 30tl' January,2or2 sought to raise issue of settlement of security deposit before handing over the possession. As the respondent failed to rernove its belongings, the petitioner was entitled to damages @<35,000/- per day in terms of clause No.7.2 of the licence agreernent. It is finther stated that in order to get back the possession, the petitioner agreed to refund the security deposit without prejudice to her right, claims and contention. Howeve4 the respondent failed to hand over the possession. Thereafter there were
'rior^ conespondences between the parties for arnicable settlernent. Finally on
16tr' March, 2012 the possession of the properfy was handed over the petitioner, however, without removing the unauthorized construction. It is stated by the petitioner that the total arnount of <70,92,126/- is payable by the respbndent. By notice dated 28th April,2Ol2 invoked albitration clause and suggested narne of a sole Albitrator to which the respondent by reply dated 14tr' May, 2012 did not agree and instead suggested the name of r t
.t
V
Sh.S.S. Nimesh as a sole Arbitator which is not agreeable to the petitioner.
Therefore, ttre present petition has been filed.
Frorn the aforesaid, it is clear that a binding arbitration agreernent is in existence between the parties and the claims appeal'to be live frorn the correspondence placed on record. Therefore, the present petition is allowed.
Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, retired Judge of High court, 451s, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54, (Mob.9425309494), is appointed as a sole fubitrator to adjudicate the disputes including claims and the counter clairns of respective parties arising out of the Licence Agreernent dated 9'l' February, 2006 and the
Supplementary Agreement dated 10th Februny,2006 to be conducted under the aegis of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The fee shall be paid to the sole Albitrator as per rules maintained by Delhi High Court Albitration
Centre. The petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be comrmrnicated to the learned Arbitrator as well as the Secretary to the Arbitation Cente forttrwith. Copies ofthe sarne be also given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties. r MARCH 18,2013/jk ffih6*KntK"Y'.
\l
February, 20L2. The respondent agreed to vacate the sarne. The petitioner had on earlier occasions informed the respondent that as a reason of unauthorized construction in the said properly by the respondent and failure to remove the sarng the petitioner w'as receiving notices fiorn NDMC asking the petitioner to pay the darnages charges. The notices were forwarded to the respondent with the request to rernove the unauthorized conshuction and pay the darnages.
It is stated in the petition that by notice dated 16tl' January,2012 the petitioner had asked the respondent to remove the unauthorized construction and hand over the vacant peaceful possession to the petitioner. Howeve1, instead of handing over possession of the first and second floor of property
No. 33, Khan Marke! New Delhi, in reply dated 30tl' January,2or2 sought to raise issue of settlement of security deposit before handing over the possession. As the respondent failed to rernove its belongings, the petitioner was entitled to damages @<35,000/- per day in terms of clause No.7.2 of the licence agreernent. It is finther stated that in order to get back the possession, the petitioner agreed to refund the security deposit without prejudice to her right, claims and contention. Howeve4 the respondent failed to hand over the possession. Thereafter there were
'rior^ conespondences between the parties for arnicable settlernent. Finally on
16tr' March, 2012 the possession of the properfy was handed over the petitioner, however, without removing the unauthorized construction. It is stated by the petitioner that the total arnount of <70,92,126/- is payable by the respbndent. By notice dated 28th April,2Ol2 invoked albitration clause and suggested narne of a sole Albitrator to which the respondent by reply dated 14tr' May, 2012 did not agree and instead suggested the name of r t
.t
V
Sh.S.S. Nimesh as a sole Arbitator which is not agreeable to the petitioner.
Therefore, ttre present petition has been filed.
Frorn the aforesaid, it is clear that a binding arbitration agreernent is in existence between the parties and the claims appeal'to be live frorn the correspondence placed on record. Therefore, the present petition is allowed.
Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, retired Judge of High court, 451s, Rajpur Road, Delhi-54, (Mob.9425309494), is appointed as a sole fubitrator to adjudicate the disputes including claims and the counter clairns of respective parties arising out of the Licence Agreernent dated 9'l' February, 2006 and the
Supplementary Agreement dated 10th Februny,2006 to be conducted under the aegis of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The fee shall be paid to the sole Albitrator as per rules maintained by Delhi High Court Albitration
Centre. The petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be comrmrnicated to the learned Arbitrator as well as the Secretary to the Arbitation Cente forttrwith. Copies ofthe sarne be also given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties. r MARCH 18,2013/jk ffih6*KntK"Y'.
JUDGMENT