It is against this order of the learned Single Judge, the owner landlord has filed this special leave to appeal.
However, the learned Single Judge by order dated 03.12.2015 allowed the petition and appointed one Shri Ashok Chhabra, Advocate as sole arbitrator to decide the disputes.
The disputes arose between the parties in relation to implementation of the terms of the agreement, which led to exchange of numberices between them by making allegations and companynter allegations by both against each other regarding companymitting of breaches of the agreement.
434 of 2015 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Delhi High Court Single Judge out of which this appeal arises praying therein for appointment of sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes which had arisen between them.
Heard Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned companynsel for the respondent.
Leave granted.
754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No.
434 of 2015 and I.A. No.
The agreement further stipulated that the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.32,00,000/ by way of advance to the appellant in cash towards the sale companysideration and balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/ was to be paid by the respondent to the appellant at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Eventually, the respondent tenant filed an arbitration petition being Arbitration Petition No.
434 of 2015 seeking change of the named arbitrator.
On 31.10.2014, the appellant and the respondent claimed to have entered into an agreement whereby it was inter alia agreed that the appellant on respondents vacating the shop would demolish the shop and companystruct the new one in its place on or before 31.03.2015 and then sell the new shop to the respondent for a total companysideration of Rs.42,00,000/ .
Clause 14 of the agreement companytained arbitration clause for making reference to the sole arbitrator in the event of any dispute arising between the parties in relation to the agreement in question.
The arbitration petition was companytested by the appellant owner landlord as number applicant by denying the allegations made in the petition.
It was inter alia alleged that since Clause 14 of the agreement provided for appointment of sole arbitrator for deciding the disputes arising out of the agreement between the parties and when disputes have arisen between them, the matter should be referred to the sole arbitrator for his decision as provided in the agreement.
754 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No.
434 of 2015 and dismissed I.A. No.
The appellant is an owner landlord of the shop measuring 153.58 sq.
feet situated at 1729, Gali No.
5, Govind Puri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 whereas the respondent was the appellants tenant of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs.175/ since July 1977.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 03.12.2015 and 19.02.2016 in Arbitration Petition No.
434 of 2015 respectively whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed Arbitration Petition No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Delay in filing special leave petition is companydoned.
In order to appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.
