Delhi High Court
Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt Ltd. vs Millennium Plaza Limited & Anr on 15 July, 2015
Author: S. Muralidhar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. 895/2014
Reserved on: June 29, 2015
Date of decision: July 15, 2015
IP SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra
Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Amol Dixit and Mr. Gaurav Mukerjee,
Advocates.
versus
MILLENNIUM PLAZA LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma with Mr.
Milanka Chaudhury and Mr.
Sarojanand Jha, Advocates.
And
+ O.M.P. 896/2014
LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra
Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Amol Dixit and Mr. Gaurav Mukerjee,
Advocates.
versus
OMP Nos. 895 & 896/2014 Page 1 of 5
MILLENNIUM PLAZA LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma with Mr.
Milanka Chaudhury and Mr.
Sarojanand Jha, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. These are petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') filed by IP Support Services
(India) Private Limited (IPSSIPL) and Lecoanet Hemant India
Private Limited (LHIPL) seeking interim reliefs in relation to the
6th to 10th Floors of Millennium Plaza Complex ('MPC') which
are under their occupation. The full sale consideration for the said
space has been paid by the Petitioners ISSIPL and LHIPL to the
Respondents - Millennium Plaza Ltd. (MPL) and Unitech Ltd.
(UL) - pursuant to the agreements to sell dated 2nd July 1997 and
12th November 1999 respectively.
2. The disputes between the parties, including one concerning
the refusal by MPL and UL to execute in favour of IPSSIPL and
LHIPL sale deeds in respect of the floors under the respective
occupation and another with regard to providing two lifts for the
exclusive use of IPSSIPL and LHIPL-were referred to arbitration.
OMP Nos. 895 & 896/2014 Page 2 of 5
The learned Sole Arbitrator by Awards dated 5th September 2012
allowed the claims of the Petitioners herein on both the said
issues.
3. Earlier, the learned Arbitrator, by a separate order dated 26th
March 2011 dismissed the application of the Respondents herein
under Section 23 (3) of the Act seeking to amend their statement
of defence to include counter claims for past, current and future
maintenance charges. The learned Arbitrator thus upheld the
contention of the Petitioners herein that the said question of
payment of maintenance charges did not arise with reference to
the agreements to sell and was therefore was beyond the scope of
his reference. The said order dated 26th March 2011 was not
challenged by the Respondents and thus attained finality.
4. O.M.P. Nos. 314 and 315 of 2013 filed by the Respondents
under Section 34 of the Act challenging the aforementioned
Awards dated 5th September 2012 have been today dismissed by
the Court by a separate common order. During the pendency of
the said petitions, certain interim orders were passed by the Court
OMP Nos. 895 & 896/2014 Page 3 of 5
in the present petitions whereunder an ad hoc amount was to be
paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents towards arrears of
maintenance charges.
5. However, the Court by the order dismissing the Section 34
petitions, has upheld the view of the learned Arbitrator that the
issue of maintenance charges is outside the scope of the
agreements to sell containing the arbitration clause. In other
words, the said issue has been held to be not arbitrable.
6. Consequently, as a logical corollary, the present petitions
under Section 9 of the Act which pre-suppose the existence of an
arbitration agreement qua the relief being sought, are not
maintainable.
7. The petitions are, accordingly dismissed. The interim orders
passed by this Court stand vacated. However, it is clarified that
the amount already paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents
pursuant to the said orders shall stands adjusted against any
claims that may be raised and found payable by one party to the
other. The dismissal of these petitions will not preclude the
OMP Nos. 895 & 896/2014 Page 4 of 5
Petitioners from seeking other appropriate remedies, in relation to
the reliefs sought in these petitions, in accordance with law.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
JULY 15, 2015
rk
