01Facts
The petitioners filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking, among other reliefs, continued access to a 200 sq. ft. kitchen area in the respondent’s JW Marriott Hotel premises and protection against interference with their possession.
p. 1The parties had entered into agreements containing arbitration clauses, including an agreement concerning the 200 sq. ft. area.
pp. 2–4The respondent had terminated the agreement relating to a separate 2,005 sq. ft. space; the immediate access dispute concerned the 200 sq. ft. kitchen area.
p. 4The respondent consented to appointment of an arbitrator and stated that access to the kitchen area would continue without obstruction until the arbitrator decided the interim application. The respondent claimed arrears of ₹51,69,376, which the petitioners undertook to deposit with the Court without prejudice to their rights.
p. 502Issues
i.Whether the parties’ disputes should be referred to arbitration and a sole arbitrator appointed.
p. 5ii.Whether the petition could be treated as an application under Section 17, with access to the 200 sq. ft. area maintained pending the arbitrator’s decision on interim relief.
pp. 4–5iii.Whether the claimed arrears should be secured pending determination of the parties’ claims and counterclaims.
p. 503Law Applied
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, permits a court to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings; Section 17 empowers the arbitral tribunal to grant interim measures.
The parties’ agreements provided for arbitration of unresolved disputes and identified New Delhi as the venue.
pp. 2–4The Court directed the arbitrator to furnish a declaration under Section 12 before entering the reference.
p. 6The parties waived the settlement-endeavour and Section 21 notice requirements for the reference.
p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 9Section 12Section 17Section 21
04Reasoning
The Court recorded the parties’ agreement to refer their disputes to arbitration and their consent to appointment of a former Judge of the Court as sole arbitrator.
p. 5As a temporary arrangement, the respondent undertook not to obstruct the petitioners’ use and access to the kitchen area until the arbitrator decided the petition, treated as a Section 17 application; the respondent’s rights were reserved.
pp. 4–5To secure the disputed arrears without deciding liability, the petitioners undertook to deposit ₹51,69,376, to be held in an interest-bearing fixed deposit and released to the rightful claimant only on the arbitrator’s directions.
pp. 5–605Holding
The petition was disposed of by referring the disputes to arbitration before Justice Chander Shekhar (Retd.), under the aegis of DIAC and its rules.
p. 6The respondent’s undertaking to permit unobstructed access to the 200 sq. ft. kitchen area pending the arbitrator’s decision on interim relief was recorded, and the petition was treated as an application under Section 17.
pp. 5–6The petitioners were directed to deposit ₹51,69,376 within four weeks, with the amount and accrued interest to be dealt with as directed by the arbitrator.
pp. 5–6All rights and contentions, including arbitrability, preliminary objections, and the merits of claims and counterclaims, were left open.
p. 6Original Court PDF
M S Light Lake Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr.vsM S Aria Hotels And Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
