Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Ram Kishor And Sons _Through Anil ... vs M/S Rahul Fashion Pvt. Ltd. _Through ... on 8 March, 2022
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 848/2021
M/S RAM KISHOR AND SONS _THROUGH
ANIL BANSAL, PROPRIETOR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Kaushal Gautam, Mr. Gaurav
Khetarpal, Mr. Ankit Kishore, Advs.
versus
M/S RAHUL FASHION PVT. LTD. _THROUGH
RAHUL SETH, DIRECTOR AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Nishant Awana, Mr. Azmal H.
Amanullah, Mr. Devansh Malhotra,
Ms. Nitya Sharma Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 08.03.2022
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks appointment of the sole arbitrator in terms of clause 19 of the rent agreement dated 7 th August, 2015 which reads as under:
"19. In case of any dispute of whatsoever nature, the matter shall be referred to sole arbitrator who shall be appointed by both the Lessee and Lessor and the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. The place and manner of arbitration shall be decided by the arbitrator."
2. As per the rent agreement, the property is situated in Noida as also the rent agreement was executed in Noida, though the respondent has its registered office at 4032, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110063 and thus carries on business at Delhi. Further, in Clause 19 the parties did not agree to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 848/2021 Page 1 of 4 GUPTA Signing Date:15.03.2022 15:50:53 venue and seat of arbitration and hence the respondent states that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court reported as 2012 (129) DRJ 608 Unimers India Ltd. Vs. IFCI Ltd. & Ors.
3. It is trite law that in case the parties in the arbitration agreement do not agree to the seat of arbitration conferring jurisdiction on one Court and jurisdiction is made out of different Courts, the provisions of Section 16 to 20 of the CPC in regard to the territorial jurisdiction will apply.
4. Section 20 CPC reads as under:
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
5. Undoubtedly, in this case the property is situated in Noida for which the rent agreement was agreed. However, it is the admitted case that possession of the rented property has been handed-over and the petitioner seeks arbitration for recovery of lease amount and thus the arbitration does Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 848/2021 Page 2 of 4 GUPTA Signing Date:15.03.2022 15:50:53 not relate to the recovery of the possession of the demised premises. In terms of Section 20 CPC the parties having not finalized, the seat of arbitration, the petitioner being the dominus-litis in case this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the respondent works for gain in Delhi, this Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (in short the Act)
6. Learned counsel for the respondent refers to Para 31 in Unimers (supra) wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court held that where a corporation carries on business at the principal office as well as subordinate office and if the cause of action arises at the place of subordinate office then the Court of the place where the subordinate office is situated will have the jurisdiction to try the case and not the place where the principal office is situated. This finding in Unimers (supra) is contrary to Section 20 CPC which provides that when two or more Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the plaintiff would be at liberty to file the petition in any of those Courts.
7. Since the respondent has registered office in Delhi, it cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Though the execution of the rent agreement is not disputed, what is disputed is the payment which the petitioner would be entitled to receive from the respondent for having vacated the premises within the lock-in period and the termination of the lease deed.
8. Considering the fact that there exists a dispute between the parties which needs to be resolved as per Clause 19 of the rent agreement which provides for arbitration and this Court is one of the Courts which has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, this Court finds no merit in the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 848/2021 Page 3 of 4 GUPTA Signing Date:15.03.2022 15:50:53 contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition should be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. In terms of clause 19 of the rent agreement dated 7 th August, 2015 the disputes arise between the parties and a notice dated 20 th March, 2021 has been issued by the petitioner to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator and as the parties have failed to appoint an arbitrator by consent, this Court deems it fit to appoint an arbitrator.
9. Consequently, Mr. D.S. Punia, Retired District & Sessions Judge, Delhi is requested to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. The fee of the learned Arbitrator will be paid in terms of Schedule IV of the Act. Learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act within a week of entering the reference.
10. Right of the respondent to file counter-claim before the learned Arbitrator shall stand reserved.
11. Petition is disposed of.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MARCH 08, 2022 'ga' Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA ARB.P. 848/2021 Page 4 of 4 GUPTA Signing Date:15.03.2022 15:50:53