Delhi High Court
Radhey Education Pvt Ltd vs International Institute Of ... on 13 November, 2013
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.11.2013
+ ARB.P. 320/2013
RADHEY EDUCATION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr D.V. Khatri, Adv.
versus
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT PVT LTD
(Now known as CENTER FOR VOCATIONAL AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDIES) ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). Notice in this petition was issued
on 31.07.2013. As per the report of the registry notice has been served on
the respondent as far back as on 02.09.2013 at one of the two addresses
given in the memo of parties. There is no representation, however, on
behalf of the respondent despite service of summons in the matter.
2. Briefly, the averments made in the petition are as follows: The
petitioner claims that a lease deed was executed with respondent on
09.05.2011, whereby the following premises were given on lease to the
respondent: Premises bearing no. 701, 7th Floor, in building Aggarwal Cyber
Plaza, C-4, 5, 6, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi; admeasuring 8200
sq. Ft. (covered area being 5600 sq. Ft.).
3. To be noted, as per the averments made in the petition the said lease
agreement has been registered. It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondent was required to pay a lease rent of Rs. 6 lacs per month and that
since September, 2011, the lease rent has not been paid. It is also the case of
the petitioner that the lease rent is in addition to electricity, water and
maintenance charges; which have also not been paid.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a legal notice
dated 08.02.2013, was issued to the respondent, in which, a demand was
raised towards rent and mesne profits. The said legal notice was followed
by yet another notice dated 01.03.2013. Since the petitioner did not receive
any response, a petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed in this court.
The said petition is numbered as Arb. P. 162/2013. The petitioner, however,
withdrew the aforementioned petition on 23.04.2013, after taking liberty to
approach this court upon fulfilment of the provisions of clause 33 of the
lease deed dated 09.05.2011.
5. There is, however, on record a response of the respondent, which is
dated 23.04.2013. The said response, on behalf of the respondent, has been
issued by its advocate to the legal notices dated 08.02.2013 and 01.03.2013,
issued by the petitioner, to which a reference has been made hereinabove.
In the said communication dated 23.04.2013, the respondent, inter alia, has
indicated that it is willing to handover the keys of the premises in issue to
the petitioner after taking possession of what they term as 'rightful assets'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, though, informs me that the possession of
the premises in issue, has not been handed over to the petitioner.
6. To be noted, on 09.05.2013, the petitioner issued yet another legal
notice to the respondent through its advocate with a view to adhere to the
provisions of clause 33 of the lease deed, which requires the parties to make
an attempt, in the first instance, to amicably resolve the disputes between
them. I am informed by the counsel for the petitioner that no response has
been received to the said communication. As a matter of fact, it is the case
of the petitioner that thereafter, yet another notice was issued to the
respondent, which is dated 12.06.2013. The petitioner claims that no reply
was received, even to the notice dated 12.06.2013.
7. In view of the fact that the respondent has not entered appearance in
the matter despite notice, the averments made by the petitioner, which have
gone unrebutted, will have to be accepted.
7.1 Having said that, the difficulty which the court experienced in the first
round, continues to obtain even in this round, as well. Clause 33 of the
lease deed, obtaining between the parties, requires the aggrieved party to
first attempt an amicable resolution of the disputes obtaining between the
parties failing which the aggrieved party can call upon the opposite party to
agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. In case the opposite party does
not agree to the appointment of an arbitrator, then the aggrieved party is
entitled to approach the court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point to any
document, which would demonstrate that after 23.04.2013, it had called
upon the respondent to agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The
notices issued thereafter, i.e., notices dated 09.05.2013 and 12.06.2013 did
not call upon the respondent to agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points to an earlier notice dated
01.03.2013, to contend that the petitioner had suggested the appointment of
an arbitrator named therein. In my view, that cannot help the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner is,
however, given liberty to call upon the respondent for appointment of an
arbitrator in terms of clause 33 of the agreement obtaining between the
parties and, if necessary, thereafter to approach this court in accordance with
law.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2013
kk
