Uttarakhand High Court
ARBAP/15/2020 on 9 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2020
9th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Between:
Devendra Singh Sahdev ...... Applicant/Petitioner
and
Reliance Jio ...... Respondent
Counsel for the applicant : Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondent : Ms. Swaleha Hussain, learned
counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
The present Arbitration Application has been
preferred by the applicant to seek appointment of a sole
Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties
arising out of their agreement dated 04.06.2015. Under
the agreement, the applicant had leased the premises to
the respondent for the purpose of installation, operation
and maintenance of single or multiple transmission
towers. Disputes have arisen between the parties with
regard to fulfillment of their respective obligations. The
parties have exchanged legal notices. Eventually, the
applicant invoked the arbitration agreement contained in
Clause 6(b) of the lease deed vide notice dated
14.07.2019, and sought appointment of an Arbitrator.
The parties have, however, not been able to eventually
agree on an Arbitrator and, consequently, this
application has been preferred.
2) Clause 6 of the lease deed deals with the
aspect of dispute resolution, and the same reads as
follows:
"6. Resolution of Disputes
(a) In the event of any existing or future dispute
regarding the ownership of the Building or
the Demised Premises with the co-owner of
the land (if any), or the developer or any
other person or entity, as the case may be,
the Lessor shall ensure that the occupation,
use and enjoyment of the Demised Premises
by the Lessee is not disturbed in any manner
whatsoever on account of such disputes, and
the Lessor undertakes to resolve such
disputes without affecting access,
occupation, use and enjoyment of the
Demised Premises by the Lessee under these
presents.
(b) In the event of any controversy, dispute or
difference arising out of or in connection
with or in relation to any term of this Deed,
both Parties shall endeavour to settle such
dispute or difference by negotiation inter se
within 15 (Fifteen) days, or such extended
time as may be mutually agreed, failing
which, such dispute or difference shall be
referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the
Lessee. The place of arbitration shall be at
Dehradun and the language of arbitration
shall be English. The arbitration shall be in
accordance with the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory
modification or re-enactment thereof. The
award of the Arbitrator shall be final and
binding on the Parties."
3) The respondent has filed the counter-affidavit.
The respondent does not dispute the fact that the parties
had entered into the aforesaid lease agreement. The
stand taken by the respondent is that the claim is barred
by limitation.
4) Since there is no dispute with regard to the
existence of the lease deed between the parties, which
also contains the arbitration agreement, and the fact
that the applicant has invoked the arbitration
agreement, I am of the view that disputes, either on the
merits, or with regard to limitation, squarely fall for
consideration by the arbitral tribunal, and that cannot be
a reason for an Arbitrator not been appointed as per the
agreement of the parties. Accordingly, the Arbitration
Application is allowed.
5) Since the claim is only in the range of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), learned counsels
state that a practicing Advocate may be appointed as an
Arbitrator.
6) I, accordingly, appoint Mr. Dushyant Mainali,
Advocate, as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide
the disputes which have arisen between the parties
under the aforesaid agreement.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 09th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Negi
