Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kush Raj Bhatia vs M/S Dlf Power And Service Ltd on 4 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082864
ARB-323-2023
-1-
252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
ARB-323-2023
Date of decision:-04.07.2024
Mr.Kush Raj Bhatia
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s DLF Power & Service Ltd.
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate,
Mr.Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate,
Ms.Gauri Handa, Advocate,
Mr.Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate and
Mr.J.S. Bains, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), petitioner
has approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Mr.Handa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is owner of commercial space and sale deed dated
08.07.2005, Annexure P1, was executed in his favour. He submits that
the petitioner leased the premises to the respondent by deed dated
16.05.2011, Annexure P2, from 01.03.2011 to 30.06.2022. He submits
that respondent terminated the lease vide legal notice dated 03.07.2020,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082864
ARB-323-2023
Annexure P3 and as some lease amount, GST, etc. was due from the
respondent, a dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner invoked the
arbitration clause by serving a legal notice dated 19.04.2022, Annexure
P6, proposing the name of the an arbitrator. In their response dated
24.05.2022, Annexure P7, the respondent contested the arbitrability of
the dispute. He submits that the petitioner filed a petition before the High
Court of Delhi for appointment of an arbitrator, which was rejected by
judgment dated 12.10.2022, Annexure P8, holding that the seat of the
arbitration is at Gurugram and the High Court at Chandigarh has the
jurisdiction. Counsel submits that the petitioner remained unsuccessful
in the review petition as well as in the SLP.
3. Upon notice by this Court, respondents have appeared and
filed a response contesting the petition on the ground that the matter
cannot be referred to an arbitrator as the petitioner has the remedy under
the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. The lease deed between the parties and the arbitration clause
are admitted. Petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause by serving a
legal notice to the respondent. There exists a dispute between the parties,
which requires to be referred for adjudication to an Arbitrator. However,
it would be open to respondents to raise all the objections before the
Arbitrator including that of arbitrability of the dispute.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Talwant Singh, a former Judge of Delhi HIgh Court, r/o X-19, GF, Hauz
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082864
ARB-323-2023
Khas, Near NIFT Campus, New Delhi -110016, M: +919910384653 is
requested to act as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator
on the date, time and place to be fixed and communicated by the learned
Arbitrator at his convenience.
8. Parties will be at liberty to raise all the pleas/defences
before the Arbitrator.
9. Needless to mention that all the questions arising between
the parties in this matter will remain open for determination in the
arbitration proceedings, and any observation made hereinabove will not
be binding on the learned Arbitrator.
10. A request letter be sent to Mr. Justice (Retd.) Talwant Singh
alongwith a copy of this order.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
04.07.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
