SOM DATT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. HDFC BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to decide the present petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying the following prayer:

(2.) It is contended by the petitioners that since the respondent No.1 has refused to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the Lease Agreement despite due service of notice in that respect and the same is done by the respondents in order to unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the dispute between the parties, which has caused severe loss and prejudice to the petitioners. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking reliefs as mentioned above.

(3.) The respondent No.1 is a banking institution and by lease dated 12.09.2000, the petitioner No.1, being the owner of the property, leased out an aggreggate super area of 3345 sq. ft. located on the right side of ground floor of the building known as Some Datt Tower, bearing DWG No.CD-K2-04 situated in Sector 18, Noida (hereinafter referred to as demised premises?), to the predecessor in interest of respondent No.1 for a period nine years commencing from 12.09.2000 on the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed.