Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Except as above, only Delhi Courts will have jurisdiction."

4. The obligations of covenants of ITDC (the Licensor) and BMEC (the Licensee) were set out in Clauses VI and VII of the licence deed respectively.

5. By a letter dated 2nd March, 2015, BMEC informed the General Manager of the Ashok Hotel about a major water leakage from the ceiling at its outlet „S Pangea‟ and requested its immediate attention to get it rectified. Another such complaint was made by a letter dated 24th June, 2015. The case of BMEC is that the water leakage problem escalated beyond control on 10th and 11th July, 2015 destroying the complete interiors of Stellar, including the wooden flooring of a major part of outlet, the music speakers, CCTV cameras, lights etc. BMEC states that in response to its letters, ITDC alleged that the outlet had been licensed to BMEC on an „as is where is basis‟ and, therefore, the responsibility for fixing the leaking roof was that of BMEC.

6. By a letter dated 6th November, 2015 addressed to ITDC, BMEC terminated the licence deed under Clause-IV (2) of the license deed with effect from 11th July, 2015. By a reply dated 10th February, 2016, ITDC denied that there was any termination with retrospective effect from 11th July, 2015 and instead treated the date of the letter i.e., 6th November, 2015 as a statutory date of six months‟ advance notice of termination. According to ITDC, the termination would take effect only from 5th May, 2016.

7. On 30th May, 2016, ITDC sent a letter to BMEC to pay the outstanding licence fee for the period up to that date within seven days failing which they would be compelled to auction the materials and goods of the Licensee to recover the arrears. In response thereto on 2nd June, 2016, BMEC sent a notice to ITDC invoking the arbitration clause and nominating a sole Arbitrator. In response thereto on 7th July, 2016, ITDC took the position that the invocation of the arbitration clause was misconceived in view of the applicability of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 („PP Act‟) to the dispute on hand.

21. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the objections raised by ITDC to the reference of the disputes by BMEC to arbitration are not sustainable and are hereby negatived.

22. The Court, accordingly, proposes Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda, a former Judge of the Supreme Court (Mobile No.08826334009) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties i.e., the claims of BMEC as articulated in its notice dated 2nd June, 2016 sent to ITDC as well as the counter-claims in relation thereto that ITDC may have against BMEC. The learned Arbitrator will fix his own terms.