Cdr. S. P . Puri (Retd.) Sole Proprietor M/S Spiral Services v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee

NAVIN CHAWLA, J AUGUST 14, 2019/rv

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 14.05.2019 Date of Decision:14.08.2019 + O.M.P. 466/2015 CDR. S. P . PURI (RETD.) SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S SPIRAL SERVICES ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Deeptakirti Verma, Adv. versus AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ..... Respondent Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, standing counsel with Mr.N.K.Singh, Adv. + O.M.P. (COMM) 8/2016 & I.A. No.606/2016 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ..... Petitioner Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, standing counsel with Mr.N.K.Singh, Adv versus CDR. S.P.PURI (RETD.) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Deeptakirti Verma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. These petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been filed by the parties to the arbitration proceedings challenging the Arbitral Award dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Agreement dated 29.12.2000 executed between them. Page 2 2. As both parties to the arbitration proceedings have challenged the Arbitral Award, 'Commander S.P. Puri (Retd.)' shall be referred to as the 'petitioner' while 'Agricultural Produce Market Committee' shall be referred to as the 'respondent' in the present order. 3. By the Agreement dated 29.12.2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement'), 6 acres of land out of 76 acres at Tikri Khampur, Delhi was allotted by the respondent to the petitioner for construction of compost plant and other operational facilities for treatment and processing of fruit, vegetable and other bio-degradable waste generated at the Azadpur and Okhla Mandies of the respondent. The period of the Agreement was thirty years from the date of handing over of the possession of the land to the petitioner. The petitioner was to pay a nominal lease rental of Rs. 1 per sq meter per annum as also a royalty of 2.5% of gross profit. Clause 5.2 of the Agreement contained the Arbitration Agreement between the parties. In terms of Clause 17 of the Agreement, either party had a right to withdraw from the Agreement at a given point of time after giving six months' notice to the other party. 4. The respondent claims that in exercise of its right under Clause 17 of the Agreement, a notice dated 02.07.2010 was issued by it to the petitioner. Service of this notice was disputed by the petitioner and the Arbitrator has held that the service of this notice on the petitioner has not been duly proved by the respondent. 5. Be that as it may, by the letter/order dated 01.01.2011, the respondent called upon the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the land to the respondent failing which the Executive Engineer of the Page 3 respondent was directed to take physical possession of the same from the petitioner. 6. The above order led to dispute between the parties, which was referred to arbitration vide order dated 20.07.2011 passed by this Court in Arb. P. No. 73/2011. The said order records that the arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. 7. The Arbitrator by the Impugned Award has held that though the respondent was unable to prove the service of notice dated 02.07.2010 on the petitioner, at the same time, as the Agreement is determinable in nature, the same cannot be specifically enforced. The Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,75,487/- as loss of profit for the period of six months in favour of the petitioner, to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 01.01.2011 till the date of the Award. 8. The Arbitrator has also partially allowed the counter claim of the respondent by directing payment of damages by the petitioner to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month with effect from 01.01.2013 till the petitioner removes the belongings and hands over the vacant possession of the room at the Entry Gate no. 1 to the respondent. The Arbitrator has furth