M/s P.K. Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. vs General Manager, Human Resources Department And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

In this application, filed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for brevity), the applicant has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the controversy involved in the case.

Mr. B.D. Pande, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would draw the attention of this Court to Clause 30 appearing at Page No. 31 of the brief, and would submit that there is an arbitration clause. It is appropriate to take note of the exact words used by the licensee while entering into the License Agreement with the present petitioner. Clause 30 of the License Agreement reads as follows :-

“30. All disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this Agreement (except those the decision whereof is otherwise heron before expressly provided for or to which the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and the rules framed hereunder which are now enforce or which may hereafter come into force are applicable), shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by the Chairman/Member of the Authority. The award of the arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties. The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be applicable. It will be no bar that the Arbitrator appointed as aforesaid is or has been an employee of the Authority and the appointment of the Arbitrator will not be challenged or be open to question in any Court of Law, on this account.”

However, Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-respondent, would argue that, as per Clause 1 of the License Agreement, the license was valid only for a period of five years from 18.02.2010 to 17.02.2015, and the demand, that has been raised by the respondent as far as the petitioner is concerned, relates to the period after 17.02.2015 till his eviction i.e. for the period he was in unauthorised occupation of the Restaurant in question.

However, taking into consideration the fact that there was an agreement between the parties for giving license to the petitioner, though for five years, the petitioner continued to possess the same until he was evicted. The dispute that arises regarding the payment of dues for the period of alleged unauthorised occupation shall also be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract i.e. the License Agreement. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties and there is a dispute between the parties. So, an Arbitrator should be appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent agree for appointment of Mr. G.S. Dharmsaktu, Retd. District Judge, R/o 16 Rajeshwar Nagar, Phase-I, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, as an Arbitrator.

As both the learned counsel are in agreement for appointment of Mr. G.S. Dharmsaktu, Retd. District Judge, R/o 16 Rajeshwar Nagar, Phase-I, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, as an Arbitrator, this Court disposes of this application by appointing Mr. G.S. Dharmsaktu, Retd. District Judge, R/o 16 Rajeshwar Nagar, Phase-I, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

Let the Arbitrator be intimated accordingly. The learned Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11(8) of the 1996 Act, furnish his disclosure in writing to this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. He shall, thereafter, fix his remuneration, and charges towards other expenses, in consultation with the parties to the dispute. He shall endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings, and to pass an award with utmost expedition, preferably within six months from the date on which he enters upon a reference.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.