Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs M/S. Aida Foods Pvt. Ltd

Delhi High Court 21 Jan 2022 Arbitration Petition No. 1183 Of 2021 (2022) 01 DEL CK 0164
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Arbitration Petition No. 1183 Of 2021

Hon'ble Bench

Suresh Kumar Kait, J

Advocates

Kittu Bajaj, Ravinder Singh, Raveesha Gupta

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6), 12

Judgement Text

Translate:

Suresh Kumar Kait, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to

adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties.

2. Pertinently, petitioner and respondent both are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner owns the Ambience Mall,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent had approached the petitioner for taking on lease/license the Retail Space Food Stall and Kitchen No.7.

Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the parties on 11.05.2018 for taking possession for fitouts and petitioner vacated the said premises

and handed over the possession thereof to the Respondent on 01.11.2019. Thereafter, on 28.07.2021 petitioner communicated the respondent and

called upon to pay sum of Rs.37,03,113/- towards the charges of the premises but respondent failed to pay the same. Thereafter, petitioner made

several requests and consistent demands to pay the aforesaid due and payable amount and even though respondent assured to clear the same but did

not pay the same till date. So, the disputes continued between the parties.

4. Thereafter, petitioner under clause 34 of the agreement dated 11.05.2018 sent a legal notice dated 20.09.2021 to the respondent invoking arbitration

for recovery of accrued arrears of rent, CAM, electricity, water, LPG, promotional, LPC and other charges along with payment charges. In response

thereto, respondent disputed its liability and made false allegations against the petitioner.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that as per Clause 34 of the Agreement, in case of any dispute between

the parties, the sole Arbitrator is to be appointed mutually by the parties. However, since respondent has failed to appoint the sole Arbitrator, hence,

the present petition has been filed.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has not opposed the present petition and the averments made

therein but has not controverted that the disputes are arbitrable. Learned counsel has submitted that an Arbitrator be appointed by this Court for

adjudication of dispute between the parties.

7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr.C.K. Chaturvedi, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9810652722) is appointed sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

10. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More