ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. v. KUMAR GALLERY PVT. LTD.

Delhi High Court · 27 Aug 2021 · 2021:DHC:2646
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ARB.P. 737/2021
2021:DHC:2646
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act as the parties resolved their dispute with the respondent agreeing to vacate the premises.

Full Text
Translation output
ARB.P. 737/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.08.2021
ARB.P.737/2021
ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sidhant Kumar with Ms.Manyaa Chandok, Advs.
VERSUS
KUMAR GALLERY PVT. LTD. …. Respondent
Through Mr.Naveen Chawla, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
JUDGMENT
(oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the petitioner and respondent.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public limited company listed on the National Stock Exchange and is the owner of a hotel located in a building complex in the name and style of Hyatt Regency, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 2021:DHC:2646

3. Pertinently, the dispute inter se parties arise out of the License Agreement dated 18.01.1988 entered between the parties, by virtue of which respondent was permitted to use Shop No. U-68, located at the Shopping Arcade, Hotel Grand Hyatt, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The said License Agreement was time to time extended through Renewal Agreements.

4. However, petitioner by communication dated 29.05.2020 revoked the license agreement and called upon the respondent to remove all its goods/belongings from the premises by 01.06.2020. On the contrary, respondent by communication dated 29.06.2020, disputed the aforesaid revocation and refused to remove all his goods/belongings from the subject premises.

5. Today during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent has accepted the termination order dated 29.05.2020 and is willing and ready to hand over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid submission of respondent is accepted by counsel for petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the respondent shall remove goods/articles lying in the shop in question and shall hand over peaceful possession of the shop in question to the petitioner on 02.09.2021. It is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains in the present petition to be considered by this Court.

9. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2021 ab/r