Devendra Singh Sahdev vs Reliance Jio

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The present Arbitration Application has been preferred by the applicant to seek appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties arising out of their agreement dated 04.06.2015. Under the agreement, the applicant had leased the premises to the respondent for the purpose of installation, operation and maintenance of single or multiple transmission towers. Disputes have arisen between the parties with regard to fulfillment of their respective obligations. The parties have exchanged legal notices. Eventually, the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 6(b) of the lease deed vide notice dated 14.07.2019, and sought appointment of an Arbitrator. The parties have, however, not been able to eventually agree on an Arbitrator and, consequently, this application has been preferred.

2) Clause 6 of the lease deed deals with the aspect of dispute resolution, and the same reads as follows:

“6. Resolution of Disputes

(a) In the event of any existing or future dispute regarding the ownership of the Building or the Demised Premises with the co-owner of the land (if any), or the developer or any other person or entity, as the case may be, the Lessor shall ensure that the occupation, use and enjoyment of the Demised Premises by the Lessee is not disturbed in any manner whatsoever on account of such disputes, and the Lessor undertakes to resolve such disputes without affecting access, occupation, use and enjoyment of the Demised Premises by the Lessee under these presents.

(b) In the event of any controversy, dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with or in relation to any term of this Deed, both Parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute or difference by negotiation inter se within 15 (Fifteen) days, or such extended time as may be mutually agreed, failing which, such dispute or difference shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Lessee. The place of arbitration shall be at Dehradun and the language of arbitration shall be English. The arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties.”

3) The respondent has filed the counter-affidavit. The respondent does not dispute the fact that the parties had entered into the aforesaid lease agreement. The stand taken by the respondent is that the claim is barred by limitation.

4) Since there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the lease deed between the parties, which also contains the arbitration agreement, and the fact that the applicant has invoked the arbitration agreement, I am of the view that disputes, either on the merits, or with regard to limitation, squarely fall for consideration by the arbitral tribunal, and that cannot be a reason for an Arbitrator not been appointed as per the agreement of the parties. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed.

5) Since the claim is only in the range of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), learned counsels state that a practicing Advocate may be appointed as an Arbitrator.

6) I, accordingly, appoint Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate, as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the aforesaid agreement.