Shree Shree Iswar ... vs Amstar Investments(P) Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 325 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET


               IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                            ORIGINAL SIDE



                          EC/599/2018
           SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE & ORS.
                             VERSUS
                  AMSTAR INVESTMENTS(P) LTD.

                          AP/1276/2015
            IA NO.GA/2/2019 (OLD NO.GA/1194/2019)
                  AMSTAR INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.
                              VERSUS
           SHREE SHREE ISWAR SATYANARAYANJEE & ORS.




    BEFORE:
    The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Date : 24th March, 2021.

Appearance:

Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.

Mrs. Aindrila Basu, Adv.

Mr.Animesh Paul, Adv.

Ms. Sormi Dutta, Adv.

Ms.Fatima Hassan, Adv.

The Court:- Ms. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears

on behalf of petitioner, who wants setting aside of the

award. She hands up judgment of Supreme Court in Vidya

Drolia & Ors Vs. Durga Trading Corporation decided on 14th

December, 2020 (Civil Appeal 2402 of 2019). She relies on

paragraph 66 in the judgment, reproduced below:-

"In view of the aforesaid, we overrule the ratio

laid down in Himangni Enterprises and hold that

landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the

Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose

arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered

and governed by rent control legislation would not be

arbitrable when specific court or forum has been given

exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special

rights and obligations. Such rights and obligations

can only be adjudicated and enforced by the specified

court/forum, and not through arbitration."

She submits, in this case her client is tenant under

claiments, the tenancy covered and governed by rent control

legislation and not arbitrable when specific Court or forum

has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide

the special rights and obligations.

She reiterates submissions made by her leader and

recorded in orders dated 23rd August, 2018 and 19th February,

2019. She reiterates from page 12 in the affidavit-in-reply

that rent paid by her client was much below Rs.10,000/- and

the demise being for commercial purpose, her client stood

protected by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. She

also reteirates submissions, already recorded, on point of

termiantion of mandate and the award coming after express

agreement regarding time, had expired.

Ms. Dutta, learned advocate appears on behalf of award

holder and prays for adjournment.

List on 31st March, 2021.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.)

sb.