Delhi District Court
Mohinder Singh And Co vs Prateek Madhan on 27 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No.643/22
DLST-01-009313-2022
Mohinder Singh & Co
1107, Aakashdeep Building,
26-A, Barakhamba Road,
Cannaught Place, New Delhi
.......Plaintiff
Vs
Prateek Madhan
Former Director,
M/s Skyland Builders Pvt Ltd
B-26-27, Community Centre,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-58
.......Defendant
27.03.2024
ORDER
Present :- Counsel for plaintiff.
Counsel for defendant.
Vide this order, I shall decide the application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 moved on behalf of defendant seeking dismissal of present suit and reference of the matter to arbitration.
1. The present suit is for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profit alongwith pendentelite and future interest filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a partnership firm and the suit property was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant vide lease agreement dated 01.04.2018. The montly rent of suit property was fixed at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/- per month and the term of lease as per the said agreement CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.1 was agreed to be 11 months commencing from 01.04.2018 to 28.02.2019. Subsequent to the expiration the parties entered into subsequent yearly lease deed and the last lease deed ended on 31.03.2022 wherein the monthly rent was decided at Rs.3,50,000/-. The defendant was obliged to vacate the suit property on 31.03.2022. A letter was sent on 02.03.2022 by the plaintiff confirming the expiration of lease deed asking to vacate and handover the property on 31.03.2022, as per the lease deed.
2. The defendant failed to vacate the said property and requested the plaintiff to extend the lease deed for another year. The plaintiff clearly intimated that a fresh lease deed needed to be executed which was never done. However, it was decided that the defendant could occupy the suit property on month to month basis subject to payment of Rs.5 lacs per month. No amount was paid by the defendant from April to September 2022 and he continued to illegally occupy the suit property. In mid July 2022, father of the defendant issued a cheque of Rs.20,33,333/- in favour of the plaintiff which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. On 01.08.2022, the father of the defendant made a bank transfer of Rs.9,97,500/- for rent of April and May 2022. It is submitted that the defendant has been in continuous illegal possession since 01.06.2022. Hence, plaintiff was left with no option but to file the present suit.
3. The defendant, upon appearance in the present proceedings, filed an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for reference of the dispute to arbitration. The defendant claimed that the lease agreement dated 01.04.2018, 01.04.2019, 01.04.2020 and CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.2 01.04.2021 contained a valid arbitration clause numbered as article 13 in the lease agreement. The defendant further stated in the application that the lease agreements as per article 14 were in the possession of the plaintiff and plaintiff should be called upon to produce and place on record the original lease agreement executed between the parties.
4. Reply was filed by the plaintiff to the application of the defendant stating that the application of the defendant is abuse of process of law and same is liable to be dismissed on two grounds, (a) there is no valid arbitration agreement existing between the parties and
(b) subject matter of the suit is beyond the scope of arbitration agreement contained lease agreement dated 01.04.2021 which stood expired by efflux of time. The learned counsel for plaintiff further submitted that after 01.04.2021, no fresh lease agreement was executed and the tenancy was on a month to month basis. Hence, there was no arbitration agreement existing between the parties post expiry of lease agreement. He further submitted that once the tenancy under question became a month to month tenancy, the same had to be governed by ordinary procedure for civil suits as per Civil Procedure Code 1908 and not under any other law.
5. He further argued that in order to refer the suit to arbitration under section 8 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, there must be fulfillment of requisite condition i.e. there should be an arbitration agreement existing between the parties and if no valid arbitration agreement exists, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration.
CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.36. As there was no extension of term of the agreement between the parties, the lease agreement dated 01.04.2021 including the arbitration agreement had expired. Learned counsel for plaintiff has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled A. N. Traders Pvt Ltd Vs Shri Ram Distribution Services Pvt Ltd wherein it was held that "from the above, it would be apparent that though an Arbitration Agreement, being an independent agreement, would survive the termination of the main Agreement of which it is a part, at the same time it cannot be put in service for adjudicating the disputes that have not arisen under or in relation to such main Agreement but have arisen between the parties post such Agreement, even though the post Agreement "arrangement" may have been between the parties on similar terms and conditions as contained in the main Agreement.
It must be remembered that resolution of disputes through arbitration, O.M.P. (COMM) 169/2018 Page 8 unless mandated through a statute, is a matter of volition of the parties to an Agreement. The parties have to agree to have their disputes adjudicated through Arbitration. Such Agreement has to conform to Section 7 of the Act and is a sine-qua-non. It cannot be oral. There has to be a consensus ad idem. It must therefore, be shown that parties not only agreed that their post-Agreement arrangement would be governed by the general terms of the Agreement that expired by efflux of time, but also that any dispute in relation to such post Agreement arrangement would be adjudicated through arbitration".
7. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court titled Master Pieces Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs K Laxma Reddy & Anr , CRP No.3734 of 2011 and judgment of CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.4 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court titled M/s Eigen Technical Services Vs M/s Vatika Ltd & Anr wherein similar facts existed and it was held that arbitration clause also expired with the expiration of lease deed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant referred to the landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled Brij Raj Oberoi Vs Secretary, Tourism and Civil Aviation Department & Anr arising out of SLP (C) No.19520-19521 of 2021. It has been categorically held in the said judgment that arbitration clause in the lease agreement does not become function-less because the landlord has refused to renew the lease deed. In that sense, any dispute arising regarding the renewal has to be resolved through arbitration process. The hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment referred to case of Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation 1, a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that "154.3.The general rule and principle, in view of the legislative mandate clear from Act 3 of 2016 and Act 33 of 2019, and the principle of severability and competence-competence, is that the Arbitral Tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine and decide all questions of non-arbitrability. The court has been conferred power of "second look" on aspects of non-arbitrability post the award in terms of sub-clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Section 34(2)(a) or sub-clause (i) of Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, 154.4.Rarely as a demurrer the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 stage when it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes are non- arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny. The CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.5 restricted and limited review is to check and protect parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is demonstrably "non-arbitrable"
and to cut off the deadwood. The court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable; when consideration in summary proceedings would be insufficient and inconclusive;.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the application filed by the defendant and reply filed by the plaintiff and the judgments therein relied upon.
10. It has been categorically held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited by learned counsel for the defendant that the issue of arbitrability of the dispute over non renewal of a lease is within the realm of the Arbitral Tribunal or Arbitrator. It has also been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled M/s Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation AIR 2009 (NOC) 1435 (Del) that if, however, the parties are at one in asserting that they entered into a binding contract, but a difference has arisen between them as to whether there has been a breach by one side or the other, or as to whether circumstances have arisen which have discharged one or both parties from further performance, such differences should be regarded as differences which have arisen "in respect of ", or "with regard to", or "under" the contract, and an arbitration clause which uses these, or similar, expressions, should be construed accordingly."
"Counsel for the appellant has raised two principal contentions. According to him, since the lease in question had come to an end and CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.6 the tenancy stood terminated with effect from Ist May, 2006 after the same was determined by his client therefore, there is no subsisting lease agreement in existence under which any dispute can be referred to arbitration. It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as a matter of fact, the application moved by the respondent under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Trial court has failed to disclose any disputes between the parties in respect of which arbitration can be claimed in terms of the arbitration agreement reproduced above. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that under the circumstances, the trial court was in error in concluding that there was a subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties or that there existed any disputes between the parties that could have been referred to arbitration".
"With regard to the first argument, it is also the appellant‟s case that since the lease in question had come to an end consequently, the arbitration clause contained in the lease also came to an end and that in this way, the arbitration clause ceased to exist altogether, and that therefore, the learned trial court was in error in concluding that there existed a subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties on the basis of which a dispute could be referred to arbitration".
11. Per Saville, J. in Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation (1993) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 48. "arbitration clause in a commercial contract is an agreement inside an agreement. The parties make their commercial bargain...... but in addition agree on a private tribunal to resolve any issues that may arise between them. In this case also, the arbitration clause in question provides the manner in which all disputes or differences between the parties in regard to "any other CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.7 matter", arising out of the lease agreement, are to be resolved. Russell on Arbitration [21st Edition] has examined just the very question raised by learned counsel for the appellant who claims that since the contract in which the clause was contained was brought to an end by his client because, according to him, the other party was in breach, therefore, along with the contract, the arbitration agreement contained therein has also ceased to exist. There is status thus :-
"it would be a bizarre outcome if the arbitration clause did not survive discharge of the contract by breach, as the arbitration clause was agreed by the parties for the very purpose of providing the means by which disputes about the contract, including breach, would be determined. The first part of the answer is that the arbitration clause is treated as a separate and independent agreement which generally survives the termination of the underlying contract. This is known as the doctrine of separability."
The aforesaid doctrine of separability has been given judicial recognition in a number of judgments. Under it, unless a contrary intention appears, "the arbitration agreement has a separate life from the contract for which it provides the means of resolving disputes. This enables the arbitration agreement to survive breach of the contract of which it is a clause." (See Russell on Arbitration, 21st Edition, Page
57). Similarly, with regard to termination of a contract by breach or frustration it was held in Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. (1942) A.C. 356 that termination by breach of performance obligations does not bring the contract‟s dispute resolution procedure to an end, and is entirely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.8I may add that as held in Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera SA v. Mabanaft GmbH (1970) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 267, "the court should if the circumstances allow lean in favour of giving effect to the arbitration clause to which the parties have agreed."
In the same context, Russell on Arbitration also states that, "the reasoning behind the doctrine of separability was, therefore, that the arbitration clause constitutes a self contained contract collateral or ancillary to the underlying or "main" contract." Under the doctrine of implied terms, it has long been held that an arbitration agreement can continue to be implied as one of the terms of the relationship between the parties after the formal expiry of an agreement between them containing an arbitration clause: typically, this is found in leases and partnership deeds. [see Russell on Arbitration, 21st Edition, page 34].
12. Similarly, in Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration, Butterworths (1982), at page 8, the doctrine of separability has been expressed thus;
"a doctrine has been evolved which leads to a different conclusion-where the question is whether the contract, acknowledged to be binding at the inception, has been discharged by subsequent events. This doctrine treats the arbitration clause as having a life of its own, severable from the substantive contract, and capable of surviving it so as to give the arbitrator continuing jurisdiction not only over disputes arising from events happening whilst the contract was still in existence, but also upon whether the contract has come to an end, and if so with what consequences to the parties. Thus an arbitrator can hold that the contract has been discharged by frustration or CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.9 repudiation, or has been rescinded on the ground of misrepresentation or non-disclosure, without casting any doubt upon his own status as arbitrator."
13. On the same lines, in Shri N. Sreenivasa v. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd., 2007 (4) ARB.L.R. 445 (Kar.), it was held as follows :
"12.... But in a case where a contract is validly executed, which contains an arbitration clause, if such a contract comes to an end either by way of repudiation, frustration, breach or performance of the contract, though the contract comes to an end, the contract is still in existence, for certain purposes in respect of disputes arising under it or in connection with it. Therefore, the arbitration clause in such a contract does not perish. It continues to exist. Any dispute arising under the said contract is to be decided as stipulated in the arbitration clause. Whether the contract has come to an end in the manner stipulated in the contract itself is a dispute. Therefore, notwithstanding the contract coming to an end, the arbitration clause persists and even that dispute is to be resolved in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement."
14. The above is a cogent example of the application of the doctrine of separability.
In Andritz Oy v. Enmas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (3) ARB. L.R. 545 (Mad.), the Madras High Court examined the question of the separability and survival of the arbitration clause and held in paragraph 33 thereof that, "therefore, the contention that the arbitration clause is severable and that it can be treated as an agreement in itself is well founded. This inevitable conclusion flows out CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.10 of the provisions of Section 2(1)(b) and 7(2) of the Act, in respect of cases covered by Part I and it flows out of the provisions of Article 11(2) of the First Schedule to the Act, in respect of cases covered by Chapter I of Part II. In a sense, an arbitration clause contained only as part of a whole agreement, is to be treated as a life boat in a ship, of which it is a part. Whether the life boat would survive the ship when it is sinking, is the crucial issue to be considered .......".
To this, that Court added the qualification that the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is severable from the main contract does not imply that it will survive the main contract in every case even if the main contract is at an end. It felt that although in case of agreements which are void ab initio the ability of the arbitration clause to survive is doubtful, however, in voidable contracts, the arbitration clause would survive, while in the case of contracts which are stated to have become void later on, that Court quoted the Supreme Court in Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khayaliram Jagannath (1968) 2 SCJ 907 for the proposition that in such a situation, the arbitration clause would survive. Similarly in another case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Metro Machinery Traders & Others in Writ Appeal Nos. 1488, 1502 and 1562 of 2007 decided by the Madras High Court on 1st April, 2008, it was held in paragraph 38 thereof that;
"an arbitration clause in an agreement shall be treated as an agreement independent of other terms of the contract and even if the Arbitral Tribunal were to hold that the contract is null and void, it shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause. In other words, even if the contract is held to be void, the clause regarding arbitration found in a void contract would not become void. It exists independently of the said contract and it could be enforced."CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.11
15. Similarly, in Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros. (1960) 1 SCR 493, a Full Bench of the Supreme Court noticed the aforesaid decision of the House of Lords in Heyman v. Darwins Ltd. (supra) and quoted with approval the following observations from that decision;
"if, however, the parties are at one in asserting that they entered into a binding contract, but a difference has arisen between them as to whether there has been a breach by one side or the other, or as to whether circumstances have arisen which have discharged one or both parties from further performance, such differences should be regarded as differences which have arisen "in respect of ", or "with regard to", or "under" the contract, and an arbitration clause which uses these, or similar, expressions, should be construed accordingly."
16. The appellant's argument that the arbitration clause has ceased to exist altogether and that there was no subsisting agreement between the parties on the basis of which a dispute could be referred to arbitration does not hold water for the simple reason that an arbitration clause contained in a contract constitutes a separate agreement by itself. It has an independent existence and whether or not it survives the termination of the contract in which it is contained is a matter of fact depending upon the language of the contract as well as of the arbitration agreement itself. In this case, the fact that the arbitration agreement would continue to be in existence is also supported by the expression, "or in regard to any matter under these presents". To my mind, this clause is very wide and can easily be said to have within its contemplation any dispute between the parties with regard to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement and the CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.12 interpretation thereof, as well as any claims that one party may have against the other in this regard. It would also include any claim that the lessor may have for recovery of possession of the premises on account of breach of the contract as well as for damages and mesne profits etc. on the same account. In such a case, whilst one party may claim recovery of possession along with damages and mesne profits on account of breach by the other, the other party might well claim that there is in fact no breach at all, and that it has been acting in terms of the contract all along and that it is in possession of the premises in terms of a valid and subsisting contract. Such a dispute would clearly be one that has arisen with regard to the terms of the contract and the duties of the contracting parties to each other. The issue whether one party has validly terminated the contract or whether a party is in breach or whether the contract still subsists, is certainly something that is directly related to the contract and would, without a doubt, fall within the ambit of the expression, "any other matter" envisaged in the arbitration agreement. Clearly therefore, the appellant‟s suit against the respondent alleging violation of the aforesaid agreement of Ist June, 2005 between them, amounts to, "an action in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement" as envisaged under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
17. It is a settled law and has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Goa V. Praveen Enterprises (2012) 12 SCC 581 that "when the judicial authority finds that the subject matter of the suit is covered by a valid arbitration agreement between the parties to the suit, it will refer the parties to arbitration, by refusing to decide the action brought before it and leaving it to the parties to have CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.13 recourse to their remedies by arbitration. When such an order is made, parties may either agree upon an arbitrator and refer their disputes to him, or failing agreement, file an application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator".
18. This court also relies upon the judgment titled as S.B.P and Company V. Patel Engineering Limited (2005) 8 SCC 618 wherein it has been held that "we may at this stage notice the complementary nature of Section 8 and 11. Where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and one of the parties, ignoring it, files an action before a judicial authority and the other party raises the objection that there is an arbitration clause, the judicial authority has to consider that objection and if the objection is found sustainable to refer the parties to arbitration. The expression used in this Section is 'shall' and this Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V. G. Raju and in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pink City Midway Petroleum Page 1807 has held that the judicial authority is bound to refer the matter to arbitration once the existence of a valid arbitration clause is established. Thus, the judicial authority is entitled to, has to and bound to decide the jurisdictional issue raised before it, before making or declining to make a reference.
19. In the case at hand, it has been admitted by the parties and clause 13 also mentions as under :-
" 13.1 All disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties out of or in relation to or in connection with this Lease Agreement, the interpretation thereof, or its breach which have not been resolved between the, Parties by mutual discussion shall be CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.14 referred to binding arbitration, with the procedural and substantive law of such arbitration governed by he Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
13.2. The venue for Arbitration proceedings shall be Delhi and arbitration proceedings would be conducted in English language. The parties shall appoint the arbitrator and the arbitrator's fees and arbitration expenses shall be borne by the party against whom the award has been given. Costs shall be at the discretion of the arbitrator.
13.3. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding on the parties, judgment on the award shall be entered by any court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi.
20. The main opposition of the plaintiff side is the validity/subsistence of the arbitration agreement, as it is contended that the main agreement itself stands terminated.
21. Section 8 requires the judicial authority to compulsorily refer the parties to arbitration, if the judicial authority finds that a valid arbitration clause prima facie exits.
22. In Hema Khattar & Anr vs Shiv Khera , (2017) 7 SCC 716, Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:
"34.In Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam [Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam, (2015) 14 SCC 444] this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 447, para 8) "8. Once there is an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes or differences arising out of the agreement to arbitration, and in case either party, ignoring the terms of the agreement, approaches CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.15 the civil court and the other party, in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before the first statement on the substance of the dispute is filed, in view of the peremptory language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement, as held by this Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju [P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539] ."
23. 35. In P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju [P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539] it was held as under: (SCC p. 542, para 5) "5. The conditions which are required to be satisfied under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 before the court can exercise its powers are:
(1) there is an arbitration agreement;
(2) a party to the agreement brings an action in the court against the other party;
(3) subject-matter of the action is the same as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;
(4) the other party moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits its first statement on the substance of the dispute."
24. In view of the above, where an agreement is terminated by one party on account of the breach committed by the other, particularly, in a case where the clause is framed in wide and general terms, merely because agreement has come to an end by its termination, the CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.16 arbitration clause does not get perished nor is rendered inoperative. The Court, in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju [P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539] has held that the language of Section 8 is peremptory in nature. Therefore, in cases where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the original action after such an application is made except to refer the dispute to an Arbitrator. Therefore, it is clear that in an agreement between the parties before the civil court, if there is a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for the civil court to refer the dispute to an arbitrator.
25. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, the prerequisites for an application under Section 8 are fulfilled viz. there is an arbitration agreement; the party to the agreement brings an action in the court against the other party; the subject-matter of the action is the same as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; and the other party moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute. The court has come to the conclusion that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit after an application under Section 8 of the Act is made for arbitration. In such a situation, refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration would amount to failure of justice as also causing irreparable injury to the defendant.
26. Having regard to the above, this court is fully convinced as to the existence of a subsisting arbitral clause even when the original lease agreement has terminated as held in the recent case of Brij Raj Oberoi CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.17 Vs Secretary, Tourism and Civil Aviation Department & Anr arising out of SLP (C) No.19520-19521 of 2021 and M/s Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs Delhi Tourism and Transportation AIR 2009 (NOC) 1435 (Del) that the matter is squarely covered under the scope of the said arbitral clause, and thus, is not required to dwell upon the matter any further. Once the defendant is able to prima facie show the existence of valid arbitration agreement, Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act would preclude the court from proceeding on merits.
27. The parties, thus, are to be referred to arbitration in view of clause 13 of the lease agreement dated 01.04.2021, regardless the claim of the plaintiff as to its termination of the lease.
28. The Application is, accordingly, disposed off as allowed with liberty to both the parties to proceed for appointment of an Arbitrator in accordance with law.
29. The present proceedings, accordingly, stands disposed off as Section 8 Application stands allowed and dispute be referred to arbitration.
Digitally signed by PURVA30. File be consigned to record room. PURVA SAREEN Date: SAREEN 2024.03.28 15:01:21 +0530 (Purva Sareen) Additional District Judge-01 South District, Saket Court New Delhi/27.03.2024 CS DJ No.643/22 Mohinder Singh & Co Vs Prateek Madhan Page No.18