Delhi High Court - Orders
Iqbal Singh Sethi & Ors vs Prasad Ivf Clinic Pvt Limited on 11 January, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) 1/2022 & I.A. 413/2022
IQBAL SINGH SETHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anil Kher, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Kunal Kher and Mr. Sandeep Thukral,
Advs.
versus
PRASAD IVF CLINIC PVT LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 11.01.2022
(Video-Conferencing)
1. Mr. Anil Kher, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, restricts his relief in this petition to prayer (c), reserving his right to urge prayers (a) and (b) before the arbitral tribunal as and when constituted.
2. The petition, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, asserts that the respondent, which has been leased certain premises by the petitioner, is in continuous default of payment of lease rentals. This resulted in the petitioner terminating the lease agreement on 2nd March, 2021 and directing the respondent to vacate the premises.
3. It is averred in the petition that the respondent is neither vacating the premises nor paying the lease rent payable for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P.(I) 1/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:14.01.2022 11:22:06 premises in respect of which, as already noted hereinabove, it has been in continuous default.
4. Para 24 of the petition avers that there is a threat that the respondent may induct third parties in the premises or part with possession of the premises to third parties. This, it is submitted, would result in irreparable harm to the petitioner.
5. The averments in the petition do make out a case of existence of an arbitral dispute between the parties.
6. The lease deed provides for arbitration as the mode of resolution of disputes between the parties, and fixes the seat of arbitration at Delhi.
7. The petitioner, in the circumstances, also addressed a Section 21 notice to the respondent on 12th November, 2021, proposing the name of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes. The respondent, vide its reply dated 1st December, 2021, refused the proposal for arbitration of the disputes by the arbitrator named by the petitioner in its legal notice and, instead, called upon the petitioner to approach this Court to move an appropriate application before this Court to appoint an arbitrator. Mr. Anil Kher, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is in the process of moving this Court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.
8. The existence of an arbitral dispute, therefore, stands, prima Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P.(I) 1/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:14.01.2022 11:22:06 facie, admitted by the respondent.
9. In view thereof, given the recital of facts in the petition, a case is made out for interim directions to the respondent to maintain status quo with respect to the demised premises.
10. As such, issue notice, returnable on 21st March, 2022.
11. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks, with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
12. Till the next date of hearing, the respondent is restrained from inducting any third party into, or parting with possession of, the leased premises constituting the basement and the ground floor at 29, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, admeasuring 851.5 sq. yds.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J JANUARY 11, 2022 dsn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P.(I) 1/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:14.01.2022 11:22:06