Delhi High Court
Manju Goel vs Aasha Hostels Pvt. Ltd. on 22 September, 2021
$~1(Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 512/2021
MANJU GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu, Mr. Parth
Dixit, Mr. Kunal Mann & Mr.
Abhishek, Advs.
versus
AASHA HOSTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajan Chaudhary, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 22.09.2021
ARB.P. 512/2021
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking reference of the
disputes between the parties to arbitration.
2. The dispute arises out of a lease agreement dated 15th May,
2019, between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner alleges
that there has been continuous default in payment of rent by the
respondent, after March, 2020.
3. Ultimately, on 20th February, 2021, the petitioner issued a
notice to the respondent, directing the respondent to vacate the
premises. The respondent, in its reply dated 4th March, 2021, claimed
waiver of rent on the ground of force majeure, owing to the
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:29.09.2021
16:55:48
intervention of the COVID-2019 pandemic.
4. The petitioner disputes the applicability of force majeure in the
present circumstances.
5. Mr. Abhimanyu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that,
as on date, the respondent owes to the petitioner, an amount of ₹60
lakhs.
6. The lease deed contains the following dispute resolution clause:
"28. Dispute Resolution - Every dispute,
difference, or question which may at any time
arise between the parties hereto or any person
claiming under them, touching or arising out of
or in respect of this agreement or the subject
matter thereof shall be referred to the sole
arbitrator to be appointed mutually by LESSOR
and LESSEE for arbitration in the territory as
may be decided by the sole arbitrator as per the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 with such modification and
amendments as may be time being in force and
the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and
binding on the parties. It is also agreed between
the parties that arbitration proceeding would be
conducted in English only and in no other
language. The Courts at Delhi shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any or all disputes
arising out of this agreement."
7. Prima facie, an arbitrable dispute exists between the parties.
8. The only submission of Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the
respondent, is that the respondent is in pecuniary circumstances and
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:29.09.2021
16:55:48
would not be able to bear the expenses of arbitration. This is not an
aspect which can inhibit the court from referring a dispute to
arbitration, if an arbitrable dispute exists and the contract between the
parties contains an arbitration clause.
9. In view thereof, the dispute between the parties is referred to
arbitration by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The
arbitration would proceed under the aegis of the DIAC and the
arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance of the
schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
10. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
ss
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:29.09.2021
16:55:48
