Luminous Power Technologies v. Naresh Kumar

tl2. IN THE HIGll COlJRI OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner : Mr. Sanjm { ios\\ am i. /\lh. \'lTSll-; .. .. R1.''>pnmk:1: ! hi migh : Mr. Narc:.;]: Khanna. i\lh, < 'ORAi'vi: ilON'BLF t\1IR. ,JlJSTiCE C.S.SISTANI 0 I< DI·, R •:;;, ! ii!s a petition undci-Section l di' 1\rh1tration and Lonciliati1m :\cl. J 99h. :;ccki11g_ arpuintl11Ll11 or SUJc /\rbi;ralor [,1 dc,·[dc di:.;n:!tl'', Cl:J1'-inteliuli C1\cr a plot ol land '.ncasuring. ]ll()(l sq. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. aprrn\'l..:d designs and spccilications hy the petitioner herein together \Vi th installation !)rpm\ er connection. supply or municipal \Valer and h01T\\ cl I. Possession or the land \\as to he handed over bv the r::srondcnt to the plaintiff latest h) 1..f.'.'?006. 1,·urthcr the petitioner \Vas to deposit interest free advance and security. in the sum ol Rs.14.00 lakhs. with the respondent. out of'" hi ch. Rs.o.00 lakhs \\as to he adjusted in the rent. :, . /\s per ("la use 16 of the rent agsccn1cnt. 111 case any <lisr,utc bet\\ cc11 the parties. both ihc panics"' ere to appoint an Arbitrator. ,,·ho'' ould scttk the disputes arisinµ between them. Clause 16 of the rent agreement reads :1s unde1: "I 6 Tho/ i,l on_1· d1sp11te arises het11·ee11 the party reg,ording, the terms and conditions of' this ogri'ement in that cuse hoth thl:' /)(lr/ies 11·i/i ap1>oint on arhitralor, 1rho H'ill se/l/e tlw dispute and ii·lwsc deC1sio11 Hill he .final om/ binding on hoth the parties. -L I .earned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Rent /\gnxrnent dated J 0.:2007 het\\Cen thl: rarties. the petitioner JrniJ a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs to n:spondenl on 8.11.2007 \'idc Cheque no.394154 dated 6. I dra\\n on Corporation Bank: Rs.3.00 iakhs on 22.12.2007 vide no.394200 dateJ 21.12 .2007. dnm 11 on Corpmatiun Bank: Rs.3 .00 lakhs 1m v 1dc Rs.3 .00 lakhs on 18.2.:2008 \'ide Cheque no...+ 17485 dated l 6 .. drn\\ n on ( 'orpuration Bank: and Rs.1.00 lakhs on 30.6.:-?0m; \'i<lc ( 'hcquc 1w.:2XJ1.2008. drawn on l 'Prporation Bank. (. 'opies til I' 31 J/ )(111 l'ag£' 7 ul 8 n:cc;ph hm c hccn placed on record. Counsel l'urthcr suhmits that despite receipt or the said amounts the respondent did not hand over possession or the said land. The petitioner thcrcalkr issued a legal notice to the respondent on \Vhich was replied to by the respondent vidc communication dated Copies ol" notice dated and reply dated 12.l<i.2010 hmc heen placed on record. ( 'ounscl in the ahovc circumstances rrays rnr appointment or a sole Arbitrator lO settle all disputes anJ differences. \\hich have hCl\\een the fl<lrtics. ) . I .earned counsel for the rcspundent has opposed the rresent petition primari I) nn the ground that respondent "as made to sign the rent agreement dated 29.10.2007 without explaining the contents thereof. Counsel further submits th<Jt since the respondent \\as not awan: ()r tl1l: contents or the Rent Agreement the petitioner cannot rel)' on thL· terms and conditions ot' the agreement including the Arbitration c'bw:L. i'hc second leg ol'th1.. argument or counsel for the rcspnndent that a mere n·ctding or the Rent !\grcernent 'v'vOU]d slim\ that the same \\as signed h) t>m:. Sqdn. 1.dr. S.K. Sharma (Rctd.). in his pc1sonal Counsel next suhmits that there \\as no ()f the Board in 1;1vour of I ,dr. S.K. Sharma ( Rctd.) authoril'ing him to enter into the said Rent Agreement and since the said Rem Agreement \\as executed hy Sqdn. I .dr. S.K. Sharma (Rctd.) in his iiLt":-'• ,1 :al Cclpacil). petition is not maiiltainahlc the •,; 11..'.l it i DI :er llerein J h. It is .->uhm ittcd h) learned counsel t'(.n-tl.e r.:spomkni that 'lqdn. : dr. c 1 -· '-;harma ( Rctd.) \\OU!d not fall in the definition as per Section :'1 h) of Arhitration and Conciliation Act. I earned counsel for rcspundcnt in support or his submission has relied upon a decision rendered by a Di' is ion lknch of this Court in the case of M.il-'1. Aqua Technologies Ltd. l'. WIG Brothers Builders & Another. reported al 95 POO!.) 1)1.T 1\18 (1)13). wherein it has been held lhat disputes hct\\ccn the panics. \\ho arc not the parties to the Arbitration Agreement. cannot he rekrred lo Arbitration. Counsel for the 1 cspondcnt has n:heJ upon ;he ohscrvatir.ns made h' the !)j,·ision Hench 111 para 3. which reads <.ts under: Neitlit1r the wme can he i11/('rred hy illlplicotion nor on Arhitru/or um he oppomted/hr :he fJllrpose of'dctermining lhl' dis1111tes het1re<'11 tl1e parties. 1rlw are not pani<'s to the orhi11 utw11 ay_recmel11. /,earned Singh /01111u' 1hu1 1n/un tlwt the petitioner herein had olso earlier tiled o suit u,'.!,ainst the seL"<md res11onde11/ i1erein · i .cdrned l.'OU11scl l(lr the rcsnondcnt has aiso relied in case l)f ITC l Classic Finance Ud. L Grapco Mining and Co. I.Id .. reportcc d 1\IR 1997 CAI.Cl! I Li\ 397. more particular!) the conduding nort1nn. \\herein the Court has held as un\lcr: '"llze second pd1tumer hr•s not stp,ned the a/oresairl leose op,rcer11e11ts co111oi11ing the vuid urhitration clause and us such th< S(lid pe;itimwr 1 ·m11101 enj(Jrce the arhitrutiu11 ugrec111._:ni " k l n rcspon...,c tc !he suhmissions made h\ learned uJUllSL'l l(lr the counsel !or the rctitioncr subrnits that the t:.ih:cr; b) /\!\!l 1' )j!t)l' 'IQ the r•.:-.pondcnt hasckss and dishonest and an alkrthought. Counsel ior the re:-;pondenl l'urther submits that all payments \\hich stand ackrnl\\ kdged by the respondent were made by Mis I .uminous i>o\\ er lechnologies Private J .imitcd. petitioner herein. Counsel next submits that recital {) r the Rent Agreement 1tsel r \\Ou Id show that Sqdn. 1.dr. S. K. Sharma ( Rctd.) has acted as an employee or the petitioner herein and l'urthcr at no point or time the respondent had raised any question that petitioner herein had not L'ntered into a Rent /\grcement \\ ith !he rcspondcnL Llaborating his further counsel for the petitioner submits that legal notic.:: dated 23.10.2010 \\a;-; issued at lhc instruction or petitioner company herein and in his repi) the rcspomknt did not raist: any t)bjection \\ ith regard to the 1ssUL' that the said Rent Agreement was signed b) Sqd.1. ! .dr. S. K. '.'<harma ( Rctd.) i11 l11s personal or that petitioner herein \\as not a party in the <;aid Rent Agreement. Counsel next submit; that r,:ading of the reply to the legal notice "ould make it abundantly c I car that respondent had recognized the Sqdn. Ldr. S. K. Sharnid ( tile nl Lhe agreement. '"hi ch Cll!il;.lln'l th•_' \rhitration Clau:--:c. C')unsel also submits that even othenv1...;1: it is t(_1;· pct it i"ncr herein to take the l)h_jcct ion that this Re:1t !\grel·mcnt '' oulJ be vuidahic aL the mstancc (11' petitioner herein and Sq<ln l .dr. S.K. Sharma (lfrtd.) did not have the authority or the mandate to ') I earned Vlltmsel for the pditiom:r suhnuts that the argument raised h) :earned eo:i1:,1:l lor the respondent that respondent \\as forced and L·ohcrcnl to sign the said Rent Agreement is '" ithout anv basis dnd I' 31:'/illl 1 l'ap,c '.i ,if 8 l l - this objection can be decided hy the Arhitrator. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered hy the Supreme Court in the case of Meguin GMBI/ & Co. I' Nam/an Petrochem J,td .. reported at 2007 (5) R.A.J. 239 (SC). vvhercin the Apex Court has held that even questions of fraud can be adjudicated upon hy the Arbitrator. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 7. of this _iudg_ment. which reads as under: ·· / Jn ils co11111er a(fidavil, th<:' respondent intl!r alia has alleg,<'d ji·aud In my considered vie11'. the question as lo 1rhether the entire co;;tract is 1·itiated hJ· reos(l/1 o/ alleged co111111issio11 of any ji-a11d 011 the part of either of the parties then:to. the matter can he gone into hi-the arbitrator. Fren the question os t1J the .1urisdiction of' 1he arhitrotor (an he gonc' into hy th<: arhitrnl trihwwl itsl'((.' !11 this vie11· <?(the matter. I do not see any reason 'l'hy m1 arbitrator shall no/ he appoinl<'d in terms q/ the urhitrotion agreement of' the partil..'s hy this court in e.rerci.\'I..' r?f its jurisdiction under Sec/ion 11 (6) oj' the lei.,. ] 0. have heard COllilSCI !'or the parties and also peru..;;ed the petition, the Rcnl .!\grecrncnt dated '.29. l 0.2007 and the likd alPng \\ ith the present pctitioll. I he Rent Agreement dated 29.10. 200'/. suught tu hL' relied upon. h;. the petitioner contains an Arbitration ClausL'. !"he said Rent /\grccment has hcen signed h_y Sqdn I .dr. S.K. Shanna ( Rctd.) on hchalr of the pctiuoner and Mr. Naresh Kumar. rcspomknl herein. The question as hl whether Mr. Narcsh Kumar \\a:-. :i irccd and collcr..;;cd to sign the said Rent Agreement ,, itlwLil n.pl:1ining ccntcnts is kept open to he decided llw karncd i\rhitrat\lr as held in the case of /Hegui11 GMBll & CO. (supra). :\s for as the scc()nd ohjcct:on raised lw learned cuu11scl for !Ile i'<JP,f' \, .-.r 6 • r·_ s1wndt 11t ;" cunn:rned there is ll1l quarrel to the proros1tion that unl: such disputes can he referred to an J\rhitrator which form part of an Agreement. \\ hicb is signed hy the parties. The ohscrvations made in the judgments relied upon hy counsel for the respondent arc \\ ith respect tn th .. lse matters vvherc the a?reements were not signed <lt ,d] h) the parliLS. \vho Jiad Sought rekrcncc of tfi:-.puh.' to an /Hhi tr:itnr. Tu .-;a' that J'L't it ion er hcrL' in has not s igncd the ,'\rhtration J\greemcni lit my view cannot he accepted lirstly on the ground that this is an ohjcction. \vhieh shouid have hccn taken hy thL· n:spondcnt ;it the l irs! opportunit) availahlc as the cheques \Vere admitted!\ i'lsucd hy the petitioner herein. \\ hich \\ere duly accepted and L'nca:-.hed the rL·spondenl. Secondly. present petition been :-.igned and supported h: the ani<lavit of Sqdn. I .Jr. S. K. Sharma ( Rctd. L who is the siQnator\' of the Rent ;\Qreement cuntaininu. , ... _ _, '-- ,_ Claus,·. ! uwl notice was issued at the instance ;lf die pc(t :nncr Jicrl'lll. In response to the said not ice lhc ha, n(li raised uhjcc:i1111 that there \\:ts no agrccmeril signed b:, d-.L" petltiom:r herein ,lr that Sqdn. l.dr 'l.K. d<etd.) kill the Rent J\grecmcnt in his personal capacny. Io 1r.y mind th.: obj .... 'Ctions. to he raised, is \\ ithout am basis and is onl) to he rc_jccted. · ! /\ccun.lmgl;. present petition allowed. l\llr. IH\ar:.il .\dditional District Judge (Retd.). lCcil No is appointed as d Sok /,rbitrator tu adjudicate upon ali disputes anJ diffcr.-nL"L':-- ;ncludmg ciuims (ind counter claims arising bct\\el'n the i! is 1>agc i of 8 '3 the pariJL'S equally as per the schedule maintained hy Delhi 1 ligh ( 'ourt Arhitration C\.:ntrc. l '.. Petition stands disposed of. i I ,ct a L<)JlY <)f th i" <)rdcr he sent dircctl) l<) learned /\rhitrator. ---- J ... ttll - 23, 2011 111 sr