Oyo Apartment Investments Llp vs Mr. Syed Mohammed Hashmi & Ors on 13 July, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Oyo Apartment Investments Llp vs Mr. Syed Mohammed Hashmi & Ors on 13 July, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

$~3 (2020)
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      ARB.P. 406/2020
       OYO APARTMENT INVESTMENTS LLP                                ..... Petitioner
                            Through:       Mr. Manish Dhir, Advocate.

                            versus

       MR. SYED MOHAMMED HASHMI & ORS.                              ..... Respondents
                    Through: None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
               ORDER

%              13.07.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. The affidavit of service dated 9th July, 2021 filed by the Petitioner has been perused. As per the said affidavit, Respondents have been served with the notice through post. The Petitioner has, in addition to the said service also issued a notice to the Respondents informing them about today's listing. The said communication was sent through an e-mail and a delivery report has also been annexed with the affidavit. There is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents, despite service. Accordingly, the Court has proceeded to decide the present petition ex parte.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Petitioner seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by way of the instant petition. The Arbitration Agreement is contained in Clause 17 of the Lease Deed dated 27th June, 2019, which reads as under:

"Any dispute or controversy arising out of or in connection with the Deed or ARB.P. 406/2020 Page 1 of 3 its performance, including the validity, interpretation or application hereof, shall to the extent possible be settled amicably by negotiation and discussion among the Parties within 30 (thirty) days as of the date requested by either Party. Failing which, either Party shall be at liberty to refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral panel shall consist of a sole arbitrator appointed mutually by the Parties. Any arbitral award issued by such sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties. The language of the arbitration shall be English and seat of arbitration shall be Delhi."

3. The case of the Petitioner is that the parties to the present petition entered into a registered Lease Deed, whereby the Petitioner was inducted as a Lessee with a right to operate and manage the leased property being 'Plot No. 40, Survey No. 219 & 220, Padmashree Gardens, Vattinagulapally, RR Dist.', in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Lease Deed. Thereafter, the Petitioner made substantial capital investment in the property, including but not limited to giving the Respondents business advances/ security deposits and also made investments in terms of upgrading the property interiors and exteriors. The Petitioner contends that the Respondents locked down the property causing hindrance and interruptions in the Petitioner's management and operation of the property. The Respondents terminated the Lease Deed before the agreed lock-in period defined under the Lease Deed and created hindrance and interruption in the Petitioner's management and operation of the leased property. In this background, the Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Respondents on 26 th December, 2019 and invoked arbitration vide notice dated 27th December, 2019 wherein the Petitioner also proposed the name of a Sole Arbitrator. Despite service of the notice, the Respondents failed to reply to the Petitioner's request.

4. Since there is no contest to the present petition, the same is allowed.

ARB.P. 406/2020 Page 2 of 3

5. Accordingly, Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Advocate [Contact No. +91 9312832442] is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that are stated to have arisen between the parties out of the Lease Deed dated 27th June, 2019. The learned Arbitrator shall conduct the proceedings under the aegis of the DIAC.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator as and when notified. This is subject to the Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure under Section 12(1) of the Act and not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act.

7. The learned Arbitrator will be paid their fee in terms of the provisions of the Fourth Schedule appended to the Act.

8. It is clarified that the Court has not examined any of the claims of the parties and all the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are left open. Both the parties shall be free to raise their claims/ counter-claims before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.

9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and stands disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 13, 2021 nd ARB.P. 406/2020 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders