Delhi High Court
Kushalpolysacks Private Limited ... vs My Preferred Transformation ... on 17 December, 2021
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.12.2021
+ ARB.P. 895/2021
KUSHALPOLYSACKS PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rana S Biswas & Mr.Sunil
Sharma, Advs.
versus
MY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION
HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Shalini Sati Prasad & Ms.Meher
Tandon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Sections 11(5) & (6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Pertinently, petitioner is an absolute owner of the land, comprising of
ground floor plus four storied building constructed thereon, located at
Mouza-Raigachi, J.L. No.12, P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata-700135.
3. According to the petitioner, respondent approached the petitioner for
allowing them to use the property mentioned above to run a hotel under the
brand name of "OYO HOTELS" or "OYO TOWNHOUSE". A meeting was
held between the parties wherein respondent proposed that the petitioner
would be required to pay to respondent Rs.38,50,000/- on account of fittings
fixtures, decorative items as per standard of OYO apart from payment of
Rs.8,50,000/- towards design consultancy. Upon such payment, respondent
would enter into a lease agreement and shall pay a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- per
month once the business commences. It was agreed that parties would bear
the cost of registration and a lock-in-period of 7 years.
4. Besides, petitioner also claims to have handed over all the relevant
documents pertaining the title of the petitioner on the said property, so that
the respondent can satisfy the title of the petitioner over the said property
before entering into said lease agreement. The final lease deed was executed
on 20.10.2019 and was registered on 03.01.2020 and respondent took
possession of the same on 30.12.2019. However, respondent started delaying
the payments of rents from February & March 2020. Further, certain more
disputes with regard to payment of rent and schedule thereof arose between
the parties and various email were exchanged in this regard. It is claimed by
the petitioner that respondent failed to make the due payments and instead,
on 07.08.2020 handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner,
which was accepted without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
petitioner.
5. Thereafter, petitioner sent a notice to the respondent for invocation of
arbitration as per clause 14.2 of the registered lease deed and proposed
two names as Arbitrators. However, respondent failed to appoint the
Arbitrator and thus, the present petition has been filed.
6. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has
disputed the claims raised in the present petition, however, has submitted
that the disputes are arbitrable and has consented to the appointment of sole
Arbitrator by this Court.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Jayant Nath (Mobile: 8527959494) is appointed sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The fee of the Arbitrator shall be in accordance
with Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and
Arbitrators' Fees) Rules, 2018.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 17, 2021/ab
