AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3, and, with their consent, the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The appellant-writ petitioner filed WPMS No.1851 of 2016 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 07.05.2016 issued by SIIDCUL; a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the first petitioner's company; and for an interim order staying the impugned letter dated 07.05.2019.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant-writ petitioner was allotted an industrial plot by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 24.08.2006. Possession of the plot was handed over to them on 31.10.2006. SIIDCUL issued proceedings dated 07.05.2016 informing the appellants-writ petitioners that, pursuant to the allotment, a lease deed was executed in their favour on 16.02.2010; sufficient time had elapsed since the date of allotment of the plot of the petitioners but they had failed to utilize the said plot as per the terms of the lease deed, and the allotment letter; and they had breached clause No.1.19(a)(i) of the Lease Deed and they had not yet completed construction, they had not started operation in the said plot, and they had not also deposited the Lease Rent, Interest and Service Tax dues; and SIIDUL had no other recourse but to cancel the allotment letter dated 24.08.2006, and terminated the Lease Deed dated 16.02.2010 executed in their favour. The appellants-writ petitioners were intimated that their lease shall stand terminated after expiry of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt the notice, and possession shall be resumed by SIIDCUL. They were directed to deposit the balance lease rent with interest and Service Tax dues, and remove the building/structure/ material (if any) from the above plot within 60 days of receipt of the notice.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellants-writ petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. By interlocutory order dated 21.10.2016, passed in WPMS No.1851 of 2016, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted stay of the operation of the notice dated 07.05.2016, and directed that the project of the petitioners shall not be hampered in any manner. The writ petition was, thereafter, finally heard and disposed of by the order under appeal dated 09.04.2019.
After examining the rival contentions in great detail, the learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, noted that clause 9.2 of the lease deed provides for arbitration; all rights and obligations of the parties under the contract arise from the terms of the contract which would include, within its ambit, cancellation or termination of the lease on account of default of clause 1.1.(a)(i); and the appellant-writ petitioner had an efficacious contractual remedy of arbitration, which was also binding on them since they were signatories to the said contract. The writ petition was dismissed, relegating the appellant-writ petitioner to approach the Arbitrator in terms of the Clause 9.2, making it clear that any observations in the order under appeal would not impede the arbitrator from deciding the controversy on its merits.
Aggrieved thereby, the present Special Appeal. While the very same contentions as were urged before the learned Single Judge, are reiterated, even before us, we are satisfied that the disputes, sought to be raised in this appeal, would fall within the ambit of the arbitration clause of the Agreement.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel, would however submit that, after dismissal of the writ petition, SIDCUL has issued a notice to the appellants-writ petitioner directing them to deliver possession of the plot in question on or before 12.07.2019, failing which they would take forcible possession; since delivery of possession to the SIDCUL would enable them, in turn, to allot the said plot to some other, the appellants-writ petitioners would suffer irreparable injury thereby; and any such action taken by SIDCUL, in the interregnum, would render the remedy of Arbitration wholly illusory. The answer to this contention can be found in Section 9 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act,1996, which provides for interim measures by the Court. Sub-section (1) thereof enables a party, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, to apply to a Court seeking the measures stipulate thereunder.
Since the appellants-writ petitioners can always approach the competent Civil Court for interim measures, during the pendency of arbitral proceedings, suffice it to direct that, all the parties to the present appeal shall maintain status quo as on today for a period of three weeks. It is open to the appellants-writ petitioners, in the meanwhile to avail their remedy of approaching the Arbitrator, and the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act, 1996 for interim measures of protection pending resolution of the dispute in arbitral proceedings. We make it clear that, in case the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act, 1996 is not invoked within a period of three weeks from today i.e. on or before 02.08.2019, it is open to the respondents, thereafter, to take such measures as are available to them in the law to take possession of the subject plot from the appellant-writ petitioner.
Needless to state that the application, if any filed by the appellant-writ petitioner before the competent Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Cancellation Act,1996, shall be examined by the competent Court on its merits, uninfluenced by any observations made either in the order under appeal or in the order now passed by us.
The Special appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by 15.07.2019.