AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Two points raised by petitioner are firstly, the dispute is not arbitrable and secondly, mandate of arbitrator automatically terminated on agreed time having expired and impugned award made thereafter.
Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate, appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, a compilation of cases has been filed and copy given to Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of award/debtor.
Mr. Ray submits on the first point. Case of award debtor in the tribunal was on admission of registered lease dated 1st December, 1982 having had expired by efflux of time. On such expiry, a new tenancy was created in favour of award debtor. In context of this contention, arguments made of protection under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. He submits, no new tenancy was created. This point of arbitrability and, therefore, jurisdiction was raised before the tribunal under section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was dealt with by the tribunal on order dated 24th July, 2012. Clear finding was that no case of tenancy had been made out by award debtor. Extract from said order is given below :
"* * * *
The notice issued by the claimants upon the respondent and the replies issued thereto by the respondent were also mentioned in the statement of defence and even in such letters similar disputes as contained in the statement of defence were raised by the respondent neither in the said letters issued on behalf of the respondent in or about November or December, 2004 or in the statement of defence any case of tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has been made out. The respondent in course of their oral submissions did not point out any averments from the counter statement that the plea of tenancy governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 raised in Section 16 application was already raised in the pleadings earlier.
Finally it is worth nothing that the nature of claims made by the respondent and the prayers made in such counter claim are set out hereinbelow :
(i) An award declaring that the deed of lease dated 1st December, 1982 be adjudged null and void and of no effect and be delivered up and cancelled;
(ii) An award declaring that the respondent is the rightful owner of the premises no.24, Jogendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Salkia, Howrah;
(iii) An award directing the claimants to return a sum of Rs.3 lacs along with interest calculated @ 18% per annum which as on 31.12.2004 works out to Rs.4,77,252/=
(iv) An award for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/= being the damages suffered by the respondent on account of mis-statement and fraudulent inducement to the claimant to enter into the deed of lease;
(v) Such further and/or other order or orders be passed as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
* ***"
He submits, dispute between parties arose in respect of the lease. The lease was not disputed by award debtor. The lease was for a definite period. It came to be terminated by efflux of time. Award debtor continued in spite of expiry of the lease. Arbitration agreement in the lease was invoked and arbitral proceedings concluded by impugned award. Award debtor was never tenant under award holder, for award holder to initiate proceedings for eviction under the Rent Act. Counter claim of award debtor in the tribunal was of award debtor being purchaser. Declaration of law made, inter alia, in Booze Allen (supra) cannot be in aid of award debtor.
He will submit regarding termination of mandate on adjourned date.
List under same heading on 17th December, 2019.