Delhi High Court
Rockland Hotels Ltd vs M/S Casa2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. on 18 November, 2020
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on 18th November , 2020
+ ARB.P. 609/2020 and I.A. 10649/2020
ROCKLAND HOTELS LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Aanchal Basur and Mr.
Akash Kundu, Advs.
versus
M/S CASA2 STAYS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Somya Rathore, Adv.
CORAM:
HON' BLE MR. J USTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 18.11.2020
(Video-Conferencing)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J .
I.A. 10649/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 609/2020
1. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being taken up
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:22.11.2020
17:31:40
for disposal, without the requirement of issuance of notice, as it
merely seeks intervention of this Court to appoint an arbitrator on
behalf of the respondent, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1996 Act").
2. The dispute, between the parties, emanates from an Agreement,
dated 8th May, 2019, whereby the respondent was contracted to
manage the guesthouse of the petitioner, on a lease basis, with a
monthly lease fixed at ₹ 6,75,000/- exclusively. The petition alleges
that there were defaults, on the part of the respondent, in paying the
monthly lease, resulting in a roadblock in the smooth management of
the guesthouse. It is further averred that, in March, 2020, the
respondent requested the petitioner to waive two months' rent, and
addressed a further communication, in the same month, seeking
waiver of the rent and terminating the Agreement, invoking the force
majeure clause, contained therein. The petitioner disputes the right of
the respondent to terminate the Agreement invoking the force majeure
clause. Though, the guesthouse was, subsequently, handed over by
the respondent on 30th April, 2020, it is alleged that damages had
taken place in the premises thereof. It is alleged that the guesthouse
was in a dilapidated condition, requiring the petitioner to undertake
significant expenses, towards the restoration of the premises.
Additionally, it is alleged that, the respondent has also defaulted in the
payment of electricity, gas, telephone bills etc.
3. The petitioner further avers that efforts, at amicable settlement
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:22.11.2020
17:31:40
of the disputes, did not fructify, resulting in the petitioner issuing a
Notice of Arbitration, dated 24th July, 2020, to the respondent. The
arbitration clause in the Agreement between the petitioner and the
respondent reads as under:
"Any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to this
Agreement shall be referred to arbitration under the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules made
thereunder, in English language, and shall be heard and
determined by an arbitral tribunal composed of three
arbitrators, one each appointed by the Owner and the
Company and the third appointed by the two arbitrators so
appointed. Arbitration shall be held in New Delhi, India.
The decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be final, conclusive
and binding on the Parties..."
4. By the Notice of Arbitration, the petitioner claimed an amount
of ₹ 60,00,000/-, along with interest, from the respondent.
Additionally, in the notice, the petitioner nominated Mr. Padam
Saxena, a learned retired District Judge, as its 'nominee arbitrator'.
5. As there has been a default, on the part of the respondent, in
appointing its arbitrator, in accordance with Clause 10 of the
Agreement, between the parties, the petitioner has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.
6. More than thirty days having lapsed since the appointment, by
the petitioner, of its arbitrator, and the respondent being in default of
suggesting a name of an arbitrator, on its behalf, the petitioner is
justified in requesting this Court to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:22.11.2020
17:31:40
the respondent.
7. Ms. Somya Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent,
submits that she has no objection, if this Court appoints an arbitrator
on behalf of the respondent.
8. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms.R.Kiran Nath, learned
Additional District Judge, Delhi, (Retd.) as the nominee arbitrator on
behalf of the respondent. She may be contacted at 9910384659.
9. The terms of the said learned arbitrator would be the same as
those, which applied to Mr. Padam Saxena, learned arbitrator,
appointed by the petitioner.
10. The respondent is directed to contact the learned arbitrator at
the contact details provided, within 24 hours, so as to ascertain the
schedule, in this regard.
11. The two learned arbitrators would, therefore, proceed to appoint
the third arbitrator, in accordance with Clause 10 of the Agreement,
between the petitioner and the respondent, and the provisions of the
1996 Act.
12. Needless to say, the arbitration would proceed in accordance
with the provisions of the 1996 Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:22.11.2020
17:31:40
13. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:22.11.2020
17:31:40
