1. Paragraph 37 of the judgment and order of this Court dated 3rd May, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.4690 of 2018 [arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.16789 of 2017] preferred by Ameet Lalchand Shah and others reads as under:
“37. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and this appeal is allowed. All the aforesaid four agreements and the parties thereon are
referred to arbitration. By notice dated 13.02.2016, appellants have nominated Justice Sujata Manohar, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as
their Arbitrator. We leave it open to the parties as to the choice of the Arbitrator. If the parties are not in a position to arrive at consensus as to the
Arbitrator, the parties shall approach the appropriate High Court for appointment of the Arbitrator. Appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the
arrears of lease rent and also to pay the future lease rent for the equipments of the PV Solar Power Plant at Dongri, Raksa, District Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh at the rate of Rs.28,26,000/- per month till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings. Such payment of lease rent shall be without prejudice to
the contentions of both parties and shall be subject to the final outcome of arbitration proceedings. Since parties are referred to arbitration, commercial
Suit No.85 of 2017 filed by the respondents on the file of Delhi High Court shall stand disposed of. No cost.â€
2. In the present Miscellaneous Application, the respondent in the appeal, namely, Rishabh Enterprises has sought directions for payment of arrears of
lease rent being amount of Rs.12,60,99,374/- (as on 31st December, 2018) and also for regular payment of current rent.
3. While the reply of the non-applicants (Ameet Lalchand Shah and others, appellants in the Civil Appeal) is categorical in their assertion that current
lease rent has been paid at the rate stipulated by the judgment and order of this Court dated 3rd May, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.4690 of 2018
and the amount claimed is not due and certain adjustments which ought to have been made have not been so made by the applicant- respondent â€
Rishabh Enterprises. The claim of the arrears of lease rent quantified at Rs.12,60,99,374/- (as on 31st December, 2018), therefore, has been resisted.
4. We have considered the matter and have heard the arguments advanced.
5. While it is correct that payment of the arrears of lease rent was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the arbitration
proceedings, no quantification of such arrears had been even attempted to be made by the Court in the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018. The
present dispute being one of quantification we do not consider it appropriate to go into the same.
6. By our judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018 we had granted leave to the parties to approach the appropriate High court for appointment of an
Arbitrator, if so required. We are told at the bar that there is some difficulty in appointing an Arbitrator. The parties, therefore, would, naturally, be at
liberty to move the appropriate High Court under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Once the Arbitrator is appointed, it will
be open for the applicant â€" Rishabh Enterprises to apply to the learned Arbitrator for quantification of the arrears of lease rent and such amount as
may be quantified will be governed by the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.4690 of
2018, namely, that the amount of arrears of lease rent quantified by the learned Arbitrator will be paid by the appellants â€" non applicants (i.e. Ameet
Lalchand Shah and others), jointly and severally, to the applicant â€" respondent (i.e. Rishabh Enterprises) without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of both parties and shall be subject to the final outcome of arbitration proceedings. Future lease rentals would be paid as per judgment and
order dated 3rd May, 2018.
7. Consequently and in the light of the above, Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.
