Kailash Nath And Associates vs M/S. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3478 Del

$~2
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of decision: 15.12.2021

+     ARB.P. 969/2021
      KAILASH NATH AND ASSOCIATES                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr.Sandeep Chandna, Adv.

                          versus

      M/S. KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD.                      ..... Respondent
                    Through None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 (6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. As per the averments made by petitioner, respondent had taken the

premises situated at Upper Ground Floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba

Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 on rent and had entered into a lease deed

with the owners of the abovesaid property on 12.07.2017. Thereafter

separate Facilities Agreement was executed between petitioner and

respondent on 21.08.2017 wherein respondent requested the petitioner to

install and run and maintain an air-conditioning system of 44.5 tonnes

capacity, electrical fittings and fixtures, furniture and 85 KVA power back-

up at its own cost and expenses in the abovesaid premises and in turn

respondent shall pay service charges and GST as applicable to the petitioner.

It was also agreed that in case of any delay on the part of respondent in

making said monthly payment to the petitioner, respondent shall be liable to

pay 1% interest per month to the petitioner. It was also mentioned that in

terms of Clause 8 of the said agreement, it was to run concurrently with the

Lease Deed dated 12.07.2017 and will automatically stand terminated on the

expiry or earlier termination of the Lease Deed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the

agreement, petitioner fulfilled all its contractual obligations, however, the

respondents committed the breach of the terms of the agreement and since

April 2020, no payment has been made by the respondent.

4. Consequently, Lease Deed dated 12.07.2017 was terminated by the

Lessors of the premises and accordingly, Facilities Agreement also stood

terminated in terms of Clause 8 of the Agreement with effect from the date,

the said Lease Deed stood terminated.

5. Thereafter, on 11.12.2020 petitioner vide its letter informed the

respondent of the termination of the agreement and also called upon the

respondent to pay the said arrears of service charges/GST with interest.

However, respondent did not comply with the request.

6. Accordingly, petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement on

11.08.2021 and the parties had a meeting on the said date to discuss and

agree on the name of the sole arbitrator to be appointed. At the said

meeting, petitioner proposed two names for appointment of the arbitrator

and authorized representatives for respondent sought three days time.

Thereafter, respondent did not revert back, hence, the present petition has

been filed today.

7. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. As per office report from Registry, service report qua notice to

respondent through dasti, courier, speed post, email, fax and Whatsapp is

awaited.

9. As per the office report from the Registry, notice sent to respondent

through the ordinary post as email is served.

10. As per the affidavit of service filed by petitioner, service upon

respondent has been affected through dasti and email as is evident from dasti

notice and email which are annexed with the affidavit of service by learned

counsel for the petitioner. However, considering the aforesaid facts, it can

be said that respondent is deemed to be served, but despite that, respondent

has preferred not to appear before this Court. It seems that respondent has

nothing to oppose in the present petition.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9910384661) is appointed

sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

12. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

13. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

14. The present petition stands disposed of.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 15, 2021 ab